This is much nicer for callers who want to short-circuit real I/O errors
with `?`, because they can write this
if let Some(status) = foo.try_wait()? {
...
} else {
...
}
instead of this
match foo.try_wait() {
Ok(status) => {
...
}
Err(err) if err.kind() == io::ErrorKind::WouldBlock => {
...
}
Err(err) => return Err(err),
}
The original design of `try_wait` was patterned after the `Read` and
`Write` traits, which support both blocking and non-blocking
implementations in a single API. But since `try_wait` is never blocking,
it makes sense to optimize for the non-blocking case.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38903
Revert "Add 128-bit atomics"
This reverts commit 9903975003.
Unfortunately 128-bit atomics have broken our nightly builds (#39590) and while we investigate I'm posting a temporary revert of the PR that added them. If we can figure out a solution though before this lands I'd be happy to close!
* Moved algorithm explanation to module docs
* Added ``` before and after the examples
* Explanation of the `rbox`, `ibox` and `cbox` names
* Added docs about the breaking types to `Breaks`
* Don't disambiguate if there are multiple impls for the same type.
* Disambiguate for impls of &Foo and &mut Foo.
* Don't try to disambiguate generic types.
* Add version info to channel.rs as main.mk is no longer available
* Update `Makefile.in` used with bootstrap to not try to require `mk/util.mk`
* Update the `dist` target to avoid the makefile pieces
Update if-let.md
Calling if-let a combination of if and let is confusing, as some may be led to believe that it's a literal combination, instead of syntactic sugar added to the language as a convenience. What's there to stop someone from thinking if-let is just if and let together?
I do think this article does a good job of implying what's really going on; however, I was only able to notice this after I had begun to understand if/while-let statements, courtesy of the Rust IRC chat.
Basically, this article lacks the clarity and explicitness an inexperienced programmer like me needs in order to understand the contents fully. This is shown by my inability to understand the if-let concept from this page of the Book alone.
I think convenience, sugar, and (if-let != if + let) should all be made mention of in a clear, explicit manner. I lack confidence in my understanding of this issue, so I wrote just enough to hopefully get my thoughts across.
make lifetimes that only appear in return type early-bound
This is the full and proper fix for #32330. This also makes some effort to give a nice error message (as evidenced by the `ui` test), sending users over to the tracking issue for a fuller explanation and offering a `--explain` message in some cases.
This needs a crater run before we land.
r? @arielb1
This is the full and proper fix for #32330. This also makes some effort
to give a nice error message (as evidenced by the `ui` test), sending
users over to the tracking issue for a full explanation.
ignore more gdb versions with buggy rust support
This extends the versions of gdb which were ignored in #39039. While just ignoring gdb versions up to 7.12.1 would have been sufficient for now, I believe (after consulting https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20Versions) that ignoring versions up to 7.12.9 will prevent the tests failing again for 7.12.2, etc. while still running all tests for the development versions of gdb (which will be >= 7.12.10 as far as I can tell).
This should fix#39522.
cc @Manishearth, @michaelwoerister, #38948
[LLVM 4.0] Support a debug info API change for LLVM 4.0
Instead of directly creating a `DIGlobalVariable`, we now have to create
a `DIGlobalVariableExpression` which itself contains a reference to a
'DIGlobalVariable'.
This is a straightforward change.
In the future, we should rename `DIGlobalVariable` in the FFI
bindings, assuming we will only refer to `DIGlobalVariableExpression`
and not `DIGlobalVariable`.
Uninhabited while-let pattern fix
This fix makes it so while-let with an unsatisfiable pattern raises a correct warning rather than an incorrect error.
Use less syscalls in `FileDesc::set_{nonblocking,cloexec}`
Only set the flags if they differ from what the OS reported, use
`FIONBIO` to atomically set the non-blocking IO flag on Linux.
Don't use "unadjusted" ABI on non windows platforms
We introduced the unadjusted ABI to work around wrong
(buggy) ABI expectations by LLVM on Windows [1].
Therefore, it should be solely used on Windows and not
on other platforms, like right now is the case.
[1]: see this comment for details https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/38482#issuecomment-269074031
