This is a test file containing examples of commands that should
succeed. When we write the test runner, we will have to figure
out how to automate them.
1. Implemented the `clean` command
2. The methods implementing rustpkg commands all returned `bool`.
Since most of not all of the error situations seem unrecoverable,
I changed the methods to return unit (and also stubbed out several
more methods that were assuming a package script existed, to be
re-implemented in the future)
There's no test runner for rustpkg yet; just sketching out a few
basic test scenarios. pass/ contains packages that should compile
successfully, whereas fail/ contains packages that should fail
to build.
1. Fail when there's no package script and no crates named
main.rs, lib.rs, bench.rs, or test.rs.
2. Inject the crate link_meta "name" and "vers" attributes, so
that the output file gets named correctly in the library case.
3. Normalize '-' to '_' in package names.
r? @graydon
Pulled out tests into their own modules inside the files they test,
as per the draft style guidelines.
Started a new module, path_util, for utility functions to do with
paths and directories.
Changed default_dest_dir to use a condition and return Path
instead of Option<Path>.
Pulled out tests into their own modules inside the files they test,
as per the draft style guidelines.
Started a new module, path_util, for utility functions to do with
paths and directories.
Changed default_dest_dir to use a condition and return Path
instead of Option<Path>.
r? @graydon This is preliminary work on bringing rustpkg up to conformance with #5679
and related issues.
This change makes rustpkg infer a package ID from its containing directory,
instead of requiring name and vers attributes in the code. Many aspects of it
are incomplete; I've only tested one package (see README.txt) and one command,
"build". So far it only works for local packages.
I also removed code for several of the package commands other than "build",
replacing them with stubs that fail, since they used package IDs in ways that
didn't jibe well with the new scheme. I will re-implement the commands one
at a time.
This is preliminary work on bringing rustpkg up to conformance with #5679
and related issues.
This change makes rustpkg infer a package ID from its containing directory,
instead of requiring name and vers attributes in the code. Many aspects of it
are incomplete; I've only tested one package (see README.txt) and one command,
"build". So far it only works for local packages.
I also removed code for several of the package commands other than "build",
replacing them with stubs that fail, since they used package IDs in ways that
didn't jibe well with the new scheme. I will re-implement the commands one
at a time.
I believe this patch incorporates all expected syntax changes from extern
function reform (#3678). You can now write things like:
extern "<abi>" fn foo(s: S) -> T { ... }
extern "<abi>" mod { ... }
extern "<abi>" fn(S) -> T
The ABI for foreign functions is taken from this syntax (rather than from an
annotation). We support the full ABI specification I described on the mailing
list. The correct ABI is chosen based on the target architecture.
Calls by pointer to C functions are not yet supported, and the Rust type of
crust fns is still *u8.
Two changes:
- The first fixes an inconsistency in coherence whereby extension methods were added to the inherent methods table, but only in cross-crate scenarios. This causes some minor fallout in tests and so forth. In one case (comm) I added inherent and trait methods so as to avoid the need to import traits like `GenericPort` just to use a port.
- The second makes objects not implement the associated trait, as discussed in #5087.
r? @pcwalton
