Tiny fixes collected while reading through the Rust book. If they're too nitpicky please let me know and I'll ignore the next ones. :)
The spaces after the function and closure arguments might be intentional, but they do not make much sense: the usual formatting doesn't have such spaces, and they aren't helping align the three lines together either.
r? @steveklabnik (as suggested by [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md))
Fixes#23968.
Since the values are stored in a u64 internally, we need to be mask away the
high bits after applying the ! operator. Otherwise, these bits will be set to
one, causing overflow.
A built-in feature enabling the dereferencing of newtype structs was removed
in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/11188, and this error (E0068) was added at the same time to warn of
its removal. It seems to make sense to remove the error now, given that
the obsolete feature it is warning about was removed nearly a year and a
half ago.
Since the values are stored in a u64 internally, we need to be mask away the
high bits after applying the ! operator. Otherwise, these bits will be set to
one, causing overflow.
The current version of the example won't compile due to unstable features.
This is an attempt to fix that, at the cost of slightly more verbose code.
Using rust 1.0.0 (a59de37e9).
It might be obvious, but I'm not well versed with rust, so feedback is very welcome.
This PR fixes two little typos in the Dining Philosophers example.
Also, there are two style points that may have been oversights but may have been deliberate, so I'll just bring them up here:
1) In the last paragraph, you say
> You’ll notice we can introduce a new binding to `table` here, and it will shadow the old one. This is often used so that you don’t need to come up with two unique names.
You already said something similar to this in the Guessing Game, but maybe you intended for this example to be independent of that one.
2) In "Rust Inside Other Languages," you introduce the idea of the "global interpreter lock" and then refer to it as the GIL a few paragraphs later without explicitly stating that GIL == global interpreter lock. It's reasonable to expect readers to make the connection, but maybe that's not what you intended.
Excellent work on the examples! Congrats on 1.0!
r? @steveklabnik
A built-in feature enabling the dereferencing of newtype structs was removed
in PR #11188, and this error (E0068) was added at the same time to warn of
its removal. It seems to make sense to remove the error now, given that
the obsolete feature it is warning about was removed nearly a year and a
half ago.
This allows compiling entire crates from memory or preprocessing source files before they are tokenized.
Minor API refactoring included, which is a [breaking-change] for libsyntax users:
* `ParseSess::{next_node_id, reserve_node_ids}` moved to rustc's `Session`
* `new_parse_sess` -> `ParseSess::new`
* `new_parse_sess_special_handler` -> `ParseSess::with_span_handler`
* `mk_span_handler` -> `SpanHandler::new`
* `default_handler` -> `Handler::new`
* `mk_handler` -> `Handler::with_emitter`
* `string_to_filemap(sess source, path)` -> `sess.codemap().new_filemap(path, source)`
Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.
What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8\*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.
