Skip to content

update Atomic*::from_ptr and Atomic*::as_ptr docs #144072

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

usamoi
Copy link
Contributor

@usamoi usamoi commented Jul 17, 2025

Since #128778, it's allowed to perform atomic read and non-atomic read on the same atomic at the same time. Update the Atomic*::from_ptr and Atomic*::as_ptr documentation to remove expressions such as not allowed to mix atomic and non-atomic accesses.

see also std::sync::atomic

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 17, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 17, 2025
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ impl AtomicBool {
/// atomic types work with interior mutability. All modifications of an atomic change the value
/// through a shared reference, and can do so safely as long as they use atomic operations. Any
/// use of the returned raw pointer requires an `unsafe` block and still has to uphold the same
/// restriction: operations on it must be atomic.
/// restriction: no data races and no mixed-size accesses.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we instead alter this to point at the memory model section that has more words about this? I like the wording in the from_ptr methods.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's restriction in [Memory model for atomic accesses]. now.

@rustbot ready

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 19, 2025
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 19, 2025
@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 27, 2025
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 27, 2025
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 27, 2025

📌 Commit fe42025 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 27, 2025
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2025
update `Atomic*::from_ptr` and `Atomic*::as_ptr` docs

Since rust-lang#128778, it's allowed to perform atomic read and non-atomic read on the same atomic at the same time. Update the `Atomic*::from_ptr` and `Atomic*::as_ptr` documentation to remove expressions such as `not allowed to mix atomic and non-atomic accesses`.

see also [std::sync::atomic](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/index.html#memory-model-for-atomic-accesses)
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2025
Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #144072 (update `Atomic*::from_ptr` and `Atomic*::as_ptr` docs)
 - #144151 (`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [1/N])
 - #144300 (Clippy fixes for miropt-test-tools)
 - #144399 (Add a ratchet for moving all standard library tests to separate packages)
 - #144472 (str: Mark unstable `round_char_boundary` feature functions as const)
 - #144503 (Various refactors to the codegen coordinator code (part 3))
 - #144530 (coverage: Infer `instances_used` from `pgo_func_name_var_map`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ impl AtomicBool {
/// atomic types work with interior mutability. All modifications of an atomic change the value
/// through a shared reference, and can do so safely as long as they use atomic operations. Any
/// use of the returned raw pointer requires an `unsafe` block and still has to uphold the same
/// restriction: operations on it must be atomic.
/// restriction in [Memory model for atomic accesses].
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't sound like a sentence to me? "restriction in Memory model" is not grammatical, and also oddly capitalized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@usamoi usamoi Jul 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a title, so I thought it was appropriate to preserve the capitalization. The existing documentation for from_ptr uses You must adhere to the [Memory model for atomic accesses] and also uses capital letters.

Do you have any suggestions?

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

(This got rolled-up so fixing the wording might need a new PR)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants