This was the original intention of the privacy of structs, and it was
erroneously implemented before. A pub struct will now have default-pub fields,
and a non-pub struct will have default-priv fields. This essentially brings
struct fields in line with enum variants in terms of inheriting visibility.
As usual, extraneous modifiers to visibility are disallowed depend on the case
that you're dealing with.
Closes#11522
Now that procedural macros can be implemented outside of the compiler,
it's more important to have a reasonable API to work with. Here are the
basic changes:
* Rename SyntaxExpanderTTTrait to MacroExpander, SyntaxExpanderTT to
BasicMacroExpander, etc. I think "procedural macro" is the right
term for these now, right? The other option would be SynExtExpander
or something like that.
* Stop passing the SyntaxContext to extensions. This was only ever used
by macro_rules, which doesn't even use it anymore. I can't think of
a context in which an external extension would need it, and removal
allows the API to be significantly simpler - no more
SyntaxExpanderTTItemExpanderWithoutContext wrappers to worry about.
The new macro loading infrastructure needs the ability to force a
procedural-macro crate to be built with the host architecture rather than the
target architecture (because the compiler is just about to dlopen it).
The `print!` and `println!` macros are now the preferred method of printing, and so there is no reason to export the `stdio` functions in the prelude. The functions have also been replaced by their macro counterparts in the tutorial and other documentation so that newcomers don't get confused about what they should be using.
The comments have more information as to why this is done, but the basic idea is
that finding an exported trait is actually a fairly difficult problem. The true
answer lies in whether a trait is ever referenced from another exported method,
and right now this kind of analysis doesn't exist, so the conservative answer of
"yes" is always returned to answer whether a trait is exported.
Closes#11224Closes#11225
This replaces the link meta attributes with a pkgid attribute and uses a hash
of this as the crate hash. This makes the crate hash computable by things
other than the Rust compiler. It also switches the hash function ot SHA1 since
that is much more likely to be available in shell, Python, etc than SipHash.
Fixes#10188, #8523.
In this series of commits, I've implemented static linking for rust. The scheme I implemented was the same as my [mailing list post](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html).
The commits have more details to the nitty gritty of what went on. I've rebased this on top of my native mutex pull request (#10479), but I imagine that it will land before this lands, I just wanted to pre-emptively get all the rebase conflicts out of the way (becuase this is reorganizing building librustrt as well).
Some contentious points I want to make sure are all good:
* I've added more "compiler chooses a default" behavior than I would like, I want to make sure that this is all very clearly outlined in the code, and if not I would like to remove behavior or make it clearer.
* I want to make sure that the new "fancy suite" tests are ok (using make/python instead of another rust crate)
If we do indeed pursue this, I would be more than willing to write up a document describing how linking in rust works. I believe that this behavior should be very understandable, and the compiler should never hinder someone just because linking is a little fuzzy.
This commit alters the build process of the compiler to build a static
librustrt.a instead of a dynamic version. This means that we can stop
distributing librustrt as well as default linking against it in the compiler.
This also means that if you attempt to build rust code without libstd, it will
no longer work if there are any landing pads in play. The reason for this is
that LLVM and rustc will emit calls to the various upcalls in librustrt used to
manage exception handling. In theory we could split librustrt into librustrt and
librustupcall. We would then distribute librustupcall and link to it for all
programs using landing pads, but I would rather see just one librustrt artifact
and simplify the build process.
The major benefit of doing this is that building a static rust library for use
in embedded situations all of a sudden just became a whole lot more feasible.
Closes#3361
I added a test case which does not compile today, and required changes on
privacy's side of things to get right. Additionally, this moves a good bit of
logic which did not belong in reachability into privacy.
All of reachability should solely be responsible for determining what the
reachable surface area of a crate is given the exported surface area (where the
exported surface area is that which is usable by external crates).
Privacy will now correctly figure out what's exported by deeply looking
through reexports. Previously if a module were reexported under another name,
nothing in the module would actually get exported in the executable. I also
consolidated the phases of privacy to be clearer about what's an input to what.
The privacy checking pass no longer uses the notion of an "all public" path, and
the embargo visitor is no longer an input to the checking pass.
Currently the embargo visitor is built as a saturating analysis because it's
unknown what portions of the AST are going to get re-exported.
This also cracks down on exported methods from impl blocks and trait blocks. If you implement a private trait, none of the symbols are exported, and if you have an impl for a private type none of the symbols are exported either. On the other hand, if you implement a public trait for a private type, the symbols are still exported. I'm unclear on whether this last part is correct, but librustc will fail to link unless it's in place.
I added a test case which does not compile today, and required changes on
privacy's side of things to get right. Additionally, this moves a good bit of
logic which did not belong in reachability into privacy.
All of reachability should solely be responsible for determining what the
reachable surface area of a crate is given the exported surface area (where the
exported surface area is that which is usable by external crates).
Privacy will now correctly figure out what's exported by deeply looking
through reexports. Previously if a module were reexported under another name,
nothing in the module would actually get exported in the executable. I also
consolidated the phases of privacy to be clearer about what's an input to what.
The privacy checking pass no longer uses the notion of an "all public" path, and
the embargo visitor is no longer an input to the checking pass.
Currently the embargo visitor is built as a saturating analysis because it's
unknown what portions of the AST are going to get re-exported.
These two attributes are no longer useful now that Rust has decided to leave
segmented stacks behind. It is assumed that the rust task's stack is always
large enough to make an FFI call (due to the stack being very large).
There's always the case of stack overflow, however, to consider. This does not
change the behavior of stack overflow in Rust. This is still normally triggered
by the __morestack function and aborts the whole process.
C stack overflow will continue to corrupt the stack, however (as it did before
this commit as well). The future improvement of a guard page at the end of every
rust stack is still unimplemented and is intended to be the mechanism through
which we attempt to detect C stack overflow.
Closes#8822Closes#10155
This isn't quite as fancy as the struct in #9913, but I'm not sure we should be exposing crate names/hashes of the types. That being said, it'd be pretty easy to extend this (the deterministic hashing regardless of what crate you're in was the hard part).
Previously, all functions called by a reachable function were considered
reachable, but this is only the case if the original function was possibly
inlineable (if it's type generic or #[inline]-flagged).
When re-exporting a trait/structure/enum, then we need to propagate the
reachability of the type through the methods that are defined on it.
Closes#9906Closes#9968
