This adds a new target property, `target_vendor`. It is to be be used as a matcher for conditional compilation. The vendor is part of the [autoconf target triple](http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1Triple.html#details): `<arch><sub>-<vendor>-<os>-<env>`. `arch`, `target_os` and `target_env` are already supported by Rust.
This change was suggested in PR #28593. It enables conditional compilation based on the vendor. This is needed for the rumprun target, which needs to match against both, target_os and target_vendor.
The default value for `target_vendor` is "unknown", "apple" and "pc" are other common values.
Matching against the `target_vendor` is introduced behind the feature gate `#![feature(cfg_target_vendor)]`.
This is the first time I messed around with rustc internals. I just added the my code where I found the existing `target_*` variables, hopefully I haven't missed anything. Please review with care. :)
r? @alexcrichton
This makes the first lines of the print! and println! macros
different. Previously, they would show up exactly the same in the
documentation for the macros in libstd [1], with nothing about how
one of them also prints a newline.
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/#macros
[breaking-change]
`FixedSizeArray` is meant to be implemented for arrays of fixed size only, but can be implemented for anything at the moment. Marking the trait unsafe would make it more reasonable to write unsafe code which operates on fixed size arrays of any size.
For example, using `uninitialized` to create a fixed size array and immediately filling it with a fixed value is externally safe:
```
pub fn init_with_nones<T, A: FixedSizeArray<Option<T>>>() -> A {
let mut res = unsafe { mem::uninitialized() };
for elm in res.as_mut_slice().iter_mut() {
*elm = None;
}
res
}
```
But the same code is not safe if `FixedSizeArray` is implemented for other types:
```
struct Foo { foo: usize }
impl FixedSizeArray<Option<usize>> for Foo {
fn as_slice(&self) -> &[usize] { &[] }
fn as_mut_slice(&self) -> &mut [usize] { &mut [] }
}
```
now `init_with_nones() : Foo` returns a `Foo` with an undefined value for the field `foo`.
Reported by Moonlightning on #rust
> 17:13 EDT < Moonlightning> I think I found a bug in the str::matches() documentation. Was it copied from str::split()? :p
> 17:13 EDT < Moonlightning> Because it says “The pattern can be a simple `&str`, `char`, or a closure that determines the split.”
I changed "determines the split" to "determines if a character matches".
It's not super clear, "determines the split" is not super clear to begin with, maybe this can be made better? On the other hand following the link to Pattern provides enough details.
separate use code between openbsd/netbsd
netbsd use c_int and c_uint, but openbsd not, resulting a unused_import
error.
r? @alexcrichton
problem introduced by #28543
This adds a new target property, `target_vendor` which can be used as a
matcher for conditional compilation. The vendor is part of the autoconf
target triple: <arch><sub>-<vendor>-<os>-<env>
The default value for `target_vendor` is "unknown".
Matching against the `target_vendor` with `#[cfg]` is currently feature
gated as `cfg_target_vendor`.
extend the search path of libraries to /usr/local/lib in `run-make`
testsuite. It should permit to find libstdc++.so on usual directory.
r? @alexcrichton
We don't actually probe for javac in all circumstances, so if you have
javac installed, but don't have antlr4 installed, and you're on Mac OS
X, then you'll get a message that javac is missing, even though that's
wrong.
To fix this, let's just be a bit more generic in the message, so that
it's the same no matter what part of the lexer tests you're missing.
cc
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3m199d/running_make_check_on_the_source_code_says_javac/
We don't actually probe for javac in all circumstances, so if you have
javac installed, but don't have antlr4 installed, and you're on Mac OS
X, then you'll get a message that javac is missing, even though that's
wrong.
To fix this, let's just be a bit more generic in the message, so that
it's the same no matter what part of the lexer tests you're missing.
cc
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3m199d/running_make_check_on_the_source_code_says_javac/
