Make std::os::darwin public

[madsmtm]

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind them not being public before, but I think they should be, just like std::os::ios and std::os::macos are public.

Additionally, I've merged their source code, as it was otherwise just a bunch of unnecessary duplication.

Ultimately, I've done this PR to fix ./x build library --target=aarch64-apple-tvos,aarch64-apple-watchos,aarch64-apple-visionos, as that currently fails because of dead code warnings.

Since you reviewed #121419
r? davidtwco

Fixes #121640.

@rustbot label O-tvos O-watchos O-visionos

[rustbot]

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]

Unknown labels: O-visionos

[rustbot]

Unknown labels: O-visionos

[rustbot]

triagebot.toml has been modified, there may have been changes to the review queue.

cc @davidtwco, @wesleywiser

[davidtwco]

r? libs

[madsmtm]

Sorry, accidentally deleted the branch

[madsmtm]

r? libs-api

[dtolnay]

Thanks for the PR!

I am open to adding these modules, but not the deprecated contents being exposed by this PR. std::os::macos::raw has been deprecated since more than 8 years ago and I don't think we should be adding more of that API for new targets.

[madsmtm]

Responding to #123723 (comment):

• Do not expose std::os::{tvos, visionos, watchos}::raw — those modules will be changed to pub(crate). For macos, raw has been deprecated since more than 8 years ago and I think it's worth avoiding adding that deprecated API in yet another place. Note that the 9 type aliases will continue to be accessible as re-exports in std::os::unix::raw, where they have been stably accessible on tvos, visionos, and watchos since the original introduction of these targets. For future unix targets, we may wish to avoid re-exporting raw deprecated types for them in std::os::unix::raw in the first place.

Only std::os::darwin::fs is exposed, std::os::darwin::raw is pub(crate) and instead exposed publicly in std::os::unix::raw, std::os::macos::raw and std::os::ios::raw.

• Do not include as_raw_stat in the MetadataExt trait of the new targets. On macos this trait method has been deprecated since Rust 1.8.

This is cfg-gated to only be available on macOS and iOS.

• Seal the MetadataExt trait of the new targets.

I'm not entirely sure of a good way to do this without complex macros? trait MetadataExt: #[cfg(...)] Sealed doesn't work.

[madsmtm]

r? libs-api

[workingjubilee]

FCP checkboxes are back in this now-hidden comment, in case you're wondering why you can't find them: #123723 (comment)

[Dylan-DPC]

@joshtriplett @m-ou-se @BurntSushi this is waiting on you to vote/raise concerns on the fcp. Thanks

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

This will be merged soon.

[dtolnay]

Thank you!

[dtolnay]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 858d6d1 has been approved by dtolnay

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 858d6d1 with merge 42188c3...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: dtolnay
Pushing 42188c3 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (42188c3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 4.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-1.8%, 2.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.6%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 780.466s -> 779.973s (-0.06%)
Artifact size: 335.33 MiB -> 335.34 MiB (0.00%)