Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only #94499
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Modify the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? @Dylan-DPC |
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit f287866 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2022
Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only After a quick discussion on rust-lang#81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added [here](rust-lang@10b103a) to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it. This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.
This was referenced Mar 2, 2022
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2022
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#92061 (update char signess for openbsd) - rust-lang#93072 (Compatible variants suggestion with desugaring) - rust-lang#93354 (Add documentation about `BorrowedFd::to_owned`.) - rust-lang#93663 (Rename `BorrowedFd::borrow_raw_fd` to `BorrowedFd::borrow_raw`.) - rust-lang#94375 (Adt copy suggestions) - rust-lang#94433 (Improve allowness of the unexpected_cfgs lint) - rust-lang#94499 (Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only) - rust-lang#94505 (Restore the local filter on mono item sorting) - rust-lang#94529 (Unused doc comments blocks) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
Just on the outside looking in here, but why was this rolled up with a number of non-related PRs? I could understand if they were all docs related but I don't see the practical purpose here. |
|
@RandomInsano hi, rollups are always done with unrelated prs. The idea of rollups is not to bunch related prs together but to bunch small prs together to move the queue faster by combining prs into a single one. |
|
Thanks!
… On Mar 3, 2022, at 6:24 PM, Dylan DPC ***@***.***> wrote:
@RandomInsano hi, rollups are always done with unrelated prs. The idea of rollups is not to bunch related prs together but to bunch small prs together to move the queue faster by combining prs into a single one.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After a quick discussion on #81250 which removed special casing for mutexes added here to support Windows XP, we can't say that the standard library can build for it.
This change modifies the tier 3 non-ARM targets to show the standard library will no longer build for these and there is no work being done to change that.