std::fs: get_mode implementation for all unix

[devnexen]

No description provided.

[rustbot]

r? @workingjubilee

rustbot has assigned @workingjubilee.
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

[workingjubilee]

@devnexen I see that the internal get_path implementation varies significantly based on OS, but are you aware of another Unix OS that would use a different implementation than the current get_mode implementation? It seems everyone uses the same code.

If you are not, I would like to remove the cfg and the "default" implementation and simply use the same code for all OS re: get_mode, and see if it passes in CI. That would also mean we can remove the relevant FIXME.

[workingjubilee]

@rustbot author

[devnexen]

I have no idea about another exotic unix being different in that regard.

[workingjubilee]

@devnexen I think I would prefer to demand the "exotic Unix" show themselves.

[workingjubilee]

Thanks! Let's see what CI says!

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit 70e0f69 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[workingjubilee]

( aspirationally. )

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 70e0f69 with merge a2e1d15...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing a2e1d15 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a2e1d15): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.3%, -0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.3%, -0.9%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%)

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)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-4.0%, 2.9%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.3%)

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 751.332s -> 753.626s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 341.42 MiB -> 341.40 MiB (-0.00%)

[kadiwa4]

You silently reverted #128677, was that intentional?

[devnexen]

ah no sorry for that

[workingjubilee]

Huh, sorry, didn't notice that. 🙃