jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
fn read_scope_id(&mut self) -> Option<u32> { self.read_atomically(|p| { p.read_given_char('%')?; <del> p.read_number(10, None) </del> <ins> p.read_number(10, None, true) </ins> }) }

Related discussion:
text: One could even follow a stricter format and require that there be no padded s at all—since the RFC doesn't actually specify that. This would then lead to consistent behavior (that's also more easily predictable since it follows a well-established convention) in that both and will either be accepted (since they both follow RFC 6943) or rejected (if a stricter form is required that requires the minimal number of digits necessary to represent each octet).
This is not an incorrect assumption, as octal numbers in the loose format are specified by the number having a leading zero. (See for the PR that banned octal numbers) This is an implementation detail in the way that it checks for leading zeroes: it checks if the number starts with a zero and rejects it if the resultant parsed number is not zero.
So we are re-defining how mathematics defines numeral systems? Saying that is in base-8 (i.e., octal) because of the leading makes no sense since none of those symbols except exist in that system. Rust certainly doesn't treat the in base-8 here: . Also the documentation clearly states that each octet is in "decimal notation". Suddenly treating the octet as base-8 is a clear contradiction to the documentation.
Using leading zeros to designate octal literals is a fairly common convention. In other languages like JS and C, . Rust doesn't have that as an octal prefix because it is confusing. When using leading zeros to indicate octal numbers, isn't a valid number at all (in the same way that isn't a valid base-10 number).
So it sounds like the documentation needs to be modified. It is confusing (because it is contradictory to reality) to say that each octet is in decimal notation when the actual implementation requires each octet to be either base-10 or base-8 where the latter is assumed when there are leading s and the value is not 0—at which point any positive-integer amount of s are allowed—and furthermore error when any octet is interpreted as base-8. Seems much easier to both document and comprehend to simply require at most 3 decimal digits for each octet and either forbid leading s (including for the integer 0) or allow leading s (including ).
"The actual implementation" is relevant only insofar as its behavior is externally observable.
Code change:
fn read_scope_id(&mut self) -> Option<u32> { self.read_atomically(|p| { p.read_given_char('%')?; <del> p.read_number(10, None) </del> <ins> p.read_number(10, None, true) </ins> }) }

Related discussion:
text: And -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in every case where the function succeeds, it (behaves as if it) interprets all digits in decimal, right? So I'd say it is correct to say that everything is "in decimal notation". The only weird bit is that is accepted, but is not. This is strange, but not in contradiction with saying things are "in decimal notation".
When the documentation says the "four octets are in decimal notation", that is effectively a definition which in turn can be phrased as a logical biconditional. In this case, the logical biconditional I formed in my head was something like: "a will be parsed into an iff it is a sequence of exactly 4 base-10 numbers delimited by a ". Only one of those directions is true: if an is produced from parsing a , then the was a sequence of exactly 4 base-10 numbers delimited by a . The other direction, which is observable via a parsing failure, is not true as can be seen with something like . That is a sequence of exactly 4 base-10 numbers delimited by a , but it leads to a parsing failure. As was discovered in the discussion , it sounds like "decimal notation" as used in the documentation is not what it has meant my entire life nor what it means in a lot of areas in Rust. Specifically, any number that has leading s is not a base-10 number but in fact a base-8 number. With this modified definition of "decimal"; then my counterexample, , is in fact not a counterexample since each of those octets are not in "decimal" notation but in fact base-8. Even more perplexing as stated by is that "a lone 0 is technically octal as well in C, not that it matters" which means the definition of "decimal" used in the documentation is neither the mathematical definition nor the C definition—since something like is successfully parsed despite each of those octets being in base-8 per the C definition.
That's true in C. (Specifically, it is how C converts series of digits to numbers. "Numbers" don't have leading 0s, numbers are elements of the set of integers. The representation of a number as a string of digits can have leading 0s.
Code change:
fn read_scope_id(&mut self) -> Option<u32> { self.read_atomically(|p| { p.read_given_char('%')?; <del> p.read_number(10, None) </del> <ins> p.read_number(10, None, true) </ins> }) }

Related discussion:
text: At least that's how I think the term is usually used when one needs to be precise about series of digits vs. the thing they represent.) However, it's not true for this function. Any number that has leading 0s is rejected by this function. This fact about C was brought up only to explain why leading 0s are rejected. No base-8 occurs anywhere in the behavior of this function. If you disagree, please show an input-output pair for this function which demonstrates that base 8 is used. (The code inside the function doesn't matter, of course. Only its observable behavior does.) I really don't understand why you keep insisting that this function has anything to do with base 8. I think it might be because of some quirk in how it is implemented, but unobservable implementation details are irrelevant. As a mathematician you should be even more used to this than most programmers, since the usual way of defining mathematical functions consists entirely of input-output pairs, there is not even such a thing as an "implementation"... but I am digressing. ;) Even mathematically speaking, the sequence of digits "0" represents the same number in any base system. So, in a very precise formal sense, "not that it matters" is accurate. A base is just a way to convert a series of digits into a number, and for series of digits consisting only of 0s, the result is always the same. The definition of "decimal" used in the documentation exactly matches the mathematical definition. The documentation just fails to mention that there is an additional restriction, namely that no leading 0s are accepted (except if all digits of an octet are 0). However, it remains the case that if an input is accepted by this function, then all octets are interpreted as decimal -- and moreover, all decimal representations without leading 0s are accepted by this function.
Saying a definition matches exactly with another definition before subsequently changing the definition by adding other restrictions does not make sense to me. Does the definition of an even integer "match exactly" with the definition of an integer? No. Adding or removing restrictions to a definition changes the definition. So the fact that leading s is not allowed means we are not talking about mathematical base-10.
Code change:
fn read_scope_id(&mut self) -> Option<u32> { self.read_atomically(|p| { p.read_given_char('%')?; <del> p.read_number(10, None) </del> <ins> p.read_number(10, None, true) </ins> }) }

Related discussion:
text: If I define a function that takes an integer and it errors any time the integer is not even; however the documentation of that function makes no mention of that seems very problematic. I would not defend such documentation by saying "my definition of integer matches exactly with the definition of the mathematical definition of an integer except I also require the integer to be divisible by 2". My documentation should very clearly define what I mean by "integer", or better, simply state "even integer".
Okay, I guess I should have said that it is strictly a restriction of the mathematical definition (a subset, if you take the graph view of a function). But it doesn't disagree on any inputs where it is defined. Your talking about base 8 makes it sound like sometimes it is not matching the base 10 function even when it does produce a result (but matches the base 8 function instead), and it took a quite a lot of time to realize that is not what happens. Moreover, the subset still contains the full graph of the inverse of the full "base 10" function where you always pick the shortest representation (i.e., the most common "serialization" function of numbers into base 10 representation). So unlike your "even" example it is a pretty reasonable parsing function still. There are only some "non-canonical" representations being rejected.
Well, I think we are talking in circles at this point honestly, lol. While I would agree my example is a more extreme example of documentation failure since conflating the definition of "even integer" with "integer" is more absurd than conflating the definition of "base-10 in the shortest representation (with the exception of 0 which is allowed any non-negative integer amount of leading 0s)" with "base-10", both examples suffer from the fact that additional failures occur than otherwise would occur based on the exact definition of the term that is used (in my example "integer" and in this example "decimal"). For me, as I mentioned in the other discussion, this really is not me being "pedantic". I wrote code based on the documentation that ended being invalid since I (mis-)interpreted "decimal" to be more general than what it actually means in this context.
Code change:
fn read_scope_id(&mut self) -> Option<u32> { self.read_atomically(|p| { p.read_given_char('%')?; <del> p.read_number(10, None) </del> <ins> p.read_number(10, None, true) </ins> }) }

Related discussion:
text: Ideally, in my opinion at least, that should not happen especially since it is not that much additional effort to more properly document what certain terms mean even if that means just adding one or two more examples highlighting parsing failures (or successes) that one (like myself) would not expect.
We already agree that the docs need to be improved. :) The rest of this discussion is then mostly philosophical and not going to lead to a productive outcome, so maybe we better stop it. ;)
Code change:
<del> Subproject commit c8e3cfbdd997839c771ca32c7ac860fe95149a04 </del> <ins> Subproject commit 3abdd2f1ced4cf3a44c7de88c5e39b3bb5037c4d </ins>

Related discussion:
text: Hello, this is your friendly neighborhood mergebot. After merging PR rust-lang/rust, I observed that the tool clippy-driver no longer builds. A follow-up PR to the repository is needed to fix the fallout. cc do you think you would have time to do the follow-up work? If so, that would be great! cc the PR reviewer, and nominating for compiler team prioritization.
triage: P-medium. Removing nomination label.
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: The docs currently claim that the minimum Linux kernel version for is 2.6.18 (released September 20th, 2006). This is because RHEL 5 used that kernel version. However, RHEL 5 entered ELS on March 31, 2017. Should we continue to support RHEL 5 for , or should we increase the minimum Linux Kernel version to 2.6.27 (2nd LTS) or 2.6.32 (RHEL 6, 3rd LTS)? . Even bumping the min-version to 2.6.27 would allow us to remove most of the Linux-specific hacks in . Example: .
Given that RHEL is the only reason we keep comically old kernel versions around, I would propose that Rust only support RHEL until Maintenance Support ends. This is (essentially) what we already did for RHEL 4. Rust never supported RHEL 4, and back when RHEL 5 still had maintenance support. It would be nice to get someone from Red Hat or a RHEL customer to comment. This policy would allow us to increment the minimum kernel from 2.6.18 to 2.6.32 (and remove a lot of Linux-specific hacks). Note that RHEL has a weird (and very long) support system for RHEL 4, 5, and 6 (sources: and ). It has 5 major steps: Full Support Normal support of the OS Maintenance Support 1 Bug/Security fixes Limited hardware refresh Maintenance Support 2 Bug/Security fixes The end of this phase is considered "Product retirement" Extended Life Cycle Support (ELS) Additional paid product from Red Hat Gives updates for a longer period of time No additional releases/images Extended Life Phase (ELP) No more updates Limited Technical Support End date not given by Red Hat Current status of RHEL versions: RHEL 4 Not supported by Rust Currently in ELP (no end date specified) ELS ended March 31, 2017 RHEL 5 Supported by Rust Currently in ELS Maintenance Support ended March 31, 2017 ELS ends November 30, 2020 RHEL 6 Supported by Rust Currently in Maintenance Support 2 Maintenance Support ends November 30, 2020
cc which I think they could be related.
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: It also may be worth to drop support of Windows XP and Vista (especially considering that panics are broken on XP since June 2016, see: ). Previously it was discussed . cc
Besides , which other things would we be able to clean up?
Good question! There are 6 workarounds in for older Linux versions (that I could find). Increasing the minimum version to 2.6.32 (aka 3rd Kernel LTS, aka RHEL 6) would fix 5 of them. Code links are inline: (mentioned above, in 2.6.23) ( in 2.6.24, there is also the mention of a bug occuring on "some linux kernel at some point") to atomically set the flag on the pipe fds ( in 2.6.27) ( in 2.6.27) to permit use of ( in 2.6.28) ( in 4.5, not fixed by this proposal) As you can see, the workarounds fixed by this proposal all have a similar flavor.
I am Red Hat's maintainer for Rust on RHEL -- thanks for the cc. I try to keep an eye on new issues, but this one slipped past me. Red Hat only ships the Rust toolchain to customers for RHEL 7 and RHEL 8. If our customers would like to use Rust on older RHEL, they can do so via , and we'll support them in the same way we would for any other third-party software. Internally we do also build and use on RHEL 6, mostly because it's needed to ship Firefox updates. This is where it gets a little hairy, because each RHEL N is bootstrapped on RHEL N-1 and often kept that way -- meaning a lot of our RHEL 6 builders are still running on a RHEL 5 kernel. I would have to apply local workarounds if upstream Rust loses the ability to run on 2.6.18 kernels. We prefer to keep fixes upstream as much as possible, both for open sharing and to avoid bitrot. Is there much of a benefit to removing the current workarounds? I agree all of that code is annoying and cumbersome, but it's already written, and as far as I know it hasn't been a maintenance burden. Do you see otherwise?
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: If there are any known issues with such Linux compatibility code, I am definitely willing to take assignment for fixing them.
(Not a Rust maintainer, but I'm a Rust user and maintain a lot of other OSS software so I have well-developed feelings around supporting Very Old Software :-)) Do you have any sense of on what timeline Rust would be able to drop support for 2.6.18 kernels without causing you pain? In general I don't think people mind supporting configurations that have users and are painful to work around, but needing to support them for forever is a bitter pill to swallow! Particularly as they get harder and harder to test over time (already I have no idea how to test on really old kernels besides building it myself). So if there was an estimate "we'd like to be able to support this until Q2 2020", even if it's not set in stone, I think that would be very helpful!
The other benefit would be that Rust wouldn't have to use CentOS 5 for CI, which means we don't have to patch LLVM (and Emscripten LLVM) to compile on those systems. Of course that's also fairly limited in scope.
As soon as we stop shipping Firefox and Thunderbird updates on RHEL 6, I won't need Rust there anymore. AFAIK this does correspond to the end of Maintenance Support, November 30, 2020. Then I'll be on to RHEL 7 builders as my minimum, probably still with some RHEL 6 2.6.32 kernels involved. It should be fine for me if we update CI to CentOS 6. This is mostly concerned with how the release binaries are linked to GLIBC symbol versions, which is all in userspace. It's a broader community question whether any other Rust users still care about running on RHEL or CentOS 5. (Small caveat - glibc support for a symbol can still return , .)
I noticed that Red Hat also has Extended Life Cycle Support (ELS) for RHEL 6 until June 30, 2024. Will you need RHEL 5 to work during this time? I don't know how ELS works with Firefox updates. Also, is there any reason RHEL 4 support wasn't an issue prior to March 31, 2017 (while RHEL 5 was still normally supported)?
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: This issue came up for me when dealing with opening files in , see for more info. No single RHEL 5 issue is that bad, it's mainly just the sum of a bunch of tiny issues.
I'm not on that team, but AFAIK we don't ship Firefox updates for ELS. The last build I see for RHEL 5 was . Maybe there could be an exception for a severe security issue, but I really doubt we'd rebase to newer Firefox for that, which means Rust requirements won't change. New Firefox ESR versions do require a newer Rust toolchain too, which is generally why we have to keep up. Otherwise we could just freeze some older compat rustc while upstream moves on. Rust wasn't required until Firefox 52.
that makes perfect sense to me, thanks for clarifying. So the proposed policy would be: Support RHEL until RHEL is retired (i.e. ends normal support). This would mean: Supporting RHEL 5 (v2.6.18) until November 30, 2020 Supporting RHEL 6 (v2.6.32) until June 30, 2024 Supporting RHEL 7 (v3.10) until May, 2029 This is a much longer support tail than any other Linux distros (that I know of), so it would also be the effective minimum kernel version of , , and their dependencies. How does that sound to people? EDIT: The alternative to this would be Support RHEL until it is retired, taking the table above and incrementing the RHEL versions by 1. It would also mean being able to drop RHEL 5 support now.
Sure, that's ideal for me. :smile: As mentioned, is just needed for kernel support, as far as I'm concerned. Userspace concerns like GLIBC symbol versions can stick to currently supported for my needs.
Red Hat should backport the features we need (CLOEXEC and getrandom, in particular) to whatever kernels that it wants Rust to support. I don't know any good reason why they don't do so, other than it's cheaper to convince the whole world to keep supporting older kernel versions than it is to do the backports. We should change that dynamic.
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: The alternative to this would be Support RHEL N until it is retired I think we should not officially support retired OS versions (well, maybe with some grace period), so I prefer this option. Supporting 14 year old kernels seems a bit too much to me. each RHEL N is bootstrapped on RHEL N-1 and often kept that way -- meaning a lot of our RHEL 6 builders are still running on a RHEL 5 kernel Is it possible to apply kernel patches to those builders to add support for functionality like CLOEXEC? Or build Firefox separately on RHEL 6?
I think it won't be fruitful for us to debate the merits of stable enterprise kernels, but no, this is not a possibility. An alternative take is "Red Hat should be responsible for the work in Rust to maintain the support they want" -- here I am, ready and willing. I definitely can't change those kernels. The ones that are stuck on N-1 are precisely to avoid rocking the boat, and backporting features is a big change. Some of our arches do eventually update the builders to their matching N kernel, but some don't, and I don't know all the reasons. If the workarounds are removed, then I will have to reapply them in our own builds. This assumes I keep using only our own binaries -- if I ever have to re-bootstrap from upstream binaries for stage0, I would also have to use some interception (like ) to hack in the workarounds. This is all possible, but much worse than the status quo of maintaining support here.
I think this sounds reasonable. We aren't going to be able to update these kernels, it's just a question of when we would drop support for these OSes. Especially given that we wont need RHEL 5 CI support, I think that leaving things as they are is fine. I opened this issue to verify two things: 1) That we weren't intending on supporting RHEL 5 "forever", and had a clear date when to drop support. 2) That someone from Red Hat actively cared about supporting these older kernels. It looks like both these things are true. We should remove RHEL 5 workarounds after November 30, 2020. This issue can be postponed until then.
Code change:
cd .. rm -rf curl-build rm -rf curl-$VERSION <del> yum erase -y curl </del>

Related discussion:
text: EDIT: For our use case in , we were able to add compatibility for RHEL 5 .
See for a recent case where supporting such ancient kernels required extra manual work ( to the 2 lines mentioned by above). I am not sure how often that comes up, but probably the hardest part is to even notice that it happens -- and even then those codepaths will likely linger untested.
Yes, but this will still be true in general. If the CI kernel is newer than whatever kernel baseline we choose, it will be possible for newer syscalls to pass undetected. I don't know if we have any control over that -- can we choose a particular VM image? So that leaves us with a stated policy of support. The more that developers are aware of such issues, the better, but I'm the one most likely to notice when my build actually fails. If I come back with a fix, I at least need the project to be receptive. I haven't been in the habit of building nightly on our RHEL6 builders, but maybe I should! Catching this early is better for everyone involved...
That seems reasonable. How quick is the Rust related bootstrapping? Could it be run automatically (or more frequently)? This is an interesting point. If I hadn't made that change, would have kept working on RHEL 5, it just would have leaked an FD. I'm not sure how we would even test for this sort of thing. This isn't a RHEL 5 specific concern, I just don't know how Rust tests these types of resource leak issues in general.
About 2 hours. Automation is harder, since I believe our build system needs my credentials, but I'll look into what is possible here. Yeah, that's a lot more subtle than an !