Skip to content
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

std.c: more fixes #22654

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

std.c: more fixes #22654

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

nektro
Copy link
Contributor

@nektro nektro commented Jan 29, 2025

regressions found during oven-sh/bun#16862

@@ -4817,7 +4817,7 @@ pub const AccessError = error{
///
/// On Windows, `mode` is ignored. This is a POSIX API that is only partially supported by
/// Windows. See `fs` for the cross-platform file system API.
pub fn access(path: []const u8, mode: u32) AccessError!void {
pub fn access(path: []const u8, mode: c_int) AccessError!void {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Andrew prefers to keep c_int (& co) usage limited to std.c. It's unclear to me where that leaves std.posix, considering POSIX is an extension of C. cc @andrewrk

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please try to think of "std.posix" as a concept that is what it needs to be rather than being defined by some third party group. Everyone gets hung up on this, so I think it will have to be renamed yet again.

POSIX is irrelevant. C is irrelevant. This is an abstraction layer

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So just to be completely clear: no c_int, yeah?

@alexrp alexrp added this to the 0.14.0 milestone Jan 30, 2025
@nektro nektro changed the title std.c: more darwin fixes std.c: more fixes Jan 31, 2025
@andrewrk andrewrk removed this from the 0.14.0 milestone Mar 1, 2025
@alexrp alexrp added this to the 0.14.1 milestone Mar 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants