std: use OnceLock for SGX argument storage#158182
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
r? @clarfonthey rustbot has assigned @clarfonthey. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
Contributor
|
Looks reasonable, r=me if the SGX folks can also sign off on this. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
joboet
force-pushed
the
sgx_args_oncelock
branch
from
7cf798c to
88a3c51
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Contributor
|
ping @jethrogb @raoulstrackx @aditijannu Since you haven't replied in two weeks, would like a sign-off from one of the SGX maintainers to go ahead on this. If I don't get a reply for another two weeks I'm just going to go ahead and merge it, since it otherwise looks good to me. |
|
@sardok Can you take a look? |
sardok
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2026
Contributor
|
LGTM. Thanks. |
Member
Author
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…nthey std: use `OnceLock` for SGX argument storage Just like rust-lang#158180, using a `OnceLock` is much better. Though I guess that in this case a `static mut` would be fine as well... CC @jethrogb @raoulstrackx @aditijannu
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #159126 (Fix PR number in bootstrap's change tracker) - #156968 (diagnostics: suggest generic_const_args for const ops) - #159012 (Shrink mir::Statement to 40 bytes) - #158182 (std: use `OnceLock` for SGX argument storage) - #159114 (Add regression test for $-prefixed fragment specifier in repetition) - #159060 (Look for the cdb architecture that corresponds to the target triple) - #159089 (riscv: update c-variadic test for LLVM changes) - #159093 (pretty-print: use inline asm's actual macro name)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #159126 (Fix PR number in bootstrap's change tracker) - #156968 (diagnostics: suggest generic_const_args for const ops) - #159012 (Shrink mir::Statement to 40 bytes) - #158182 (std: use `OnceLock` for SGX argument storage) - #159114 (Add regression test for $-prefixed fragment specifier in repetition) - #159060 (Look for the cdb architecture that corresponds to the target triple) - #159089 (riscv: update c-variadic test for LLVM changes) - #159093 (pretty-print: use inline asm's actual macro name)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #159126 (Fix PR number in bootstrap's change tracker) - #155811 (Include AtomicU128/AtomicI128 in docs for any target) - #156968 (diagnostics: suggest generic_const_args for const ops) - #159012 (Shrink mir::Statement to 40 bytes) - #156618 (rustdoc: test ignoring rustc lints in CLI) - #158182 (std: use `OnceLock` for SGX argument storage) - #159114 (Add regression test for $-prefixed fragment specifier in repetition) - #158523 (Fix feature gate for `repr(simd)`) - #158876 (Fix multiple logic bugs in `Arc::make_mut`) - #158928 (std: fix Xous UDP send_to length mismatch and truncation) - #159060 (Look for the cdb architecture that corresponds to the target triple) - #159089 (riscv: update c-variadic test for LLVM changes) - #159093 (pretty-print: use inline asm's actual macro name) - #159122 (doc: use ptr::addr in offset_from docs) Failed merges: - #158732 (Apply MCP 1003 and move diagnostics.rs into its own module)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
Rollup merge of #158182 - joboet:sgx_args_oncelock, r=clarfonthey std: use `OnceLock` for SGX argument storage Just like #158180, using a `OnceLock` is much better. Though I guess that in this case a `static mut` would be fine as well... CC @jethrogb @raoulstrackx @aditijannu
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Just like #158180, using a
OnceLockis much better. Though I guess that in this case astatic mutwould be fine as well...CC @jethrogb @raoulstrackx @aditijannu