This commit contains some of the changes proposed by a rustfmt invocation,
chosen based on the fairly non-deterministic metric of how much I liked the
change. I expect we will run rustfmt on this crate again later, probably
accepting more of its changes. For now, this is already an improvement over
the status-quo.
Currently the explain command requires full erorr codes, complete with
the leading zeros and the E at the beginning. This commit changes that,
if you don't supply a full erorr code then the error number is padded
out to the required size and the E is added to the beginning.
This means that where previously you would need to write E0001, you can
now write 0001, 001, 01 or jsut 1 to refer to the same error.
In #28864, @aarzee submitted some whitespace fixes. I r+'d it. But
@retp998 noticed[1] that this file is explicitly a test of this kind of
whitespace, and so I shouldn't have changed it. This restores the old
line endings.
1: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/28864#discussion_r41332279
This turned up as part of #3170. When constructing an `undef` value to
return in the error case, we were trying to get the element type of the
Rust-level value being indexed instead of the underlying array; when
indexing a slice, that's not an array and the LLVM assertion failure
reflects this.
The regression test is a lightly altered copy of `const-array-oob.rs`.
(It is not *exactly* the text from the RFC, but the only thing it adds
is a call to a no-op function that is just an attempt to make it clear
where the potential for impl specialization comes from.)
One just checks that we are feature-gating the UGEH attribute (as
usual for attributes associated with unstable features).
The other is adapted from the RFC 1238 text, except that it has been
extended somewhat to actually *illustrate* the scenario that we are
trying to prevent, namely observing the state of data, from safe code,
after the destructor for that data has been executed.
Illustrates cases that worked before and must continue to work, and a
case that shows how to use the `unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params`
attribute (aka "the UGEH attribute") to work around
cannot-assume-parametricity.
I needed it in `RawVec`, `Vec`, and `TypedArena` for `rustc` to
bootstrap; but of course that alone was not sufficient for `make
check`.
Later I added `unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params` to collections, in
particular `LinkedList` and `RawTable` (the backing representation for
`HashMap` and `HashSet`), to get the regression tests exercising
cyclic structure from PR #27185 building.
----
Note that the feature is `dropck_parametricity` (which is not the same
as the attribute's name). We will almost certainly vary our strategy
here in the future, so it makes some sense to have a not-as-ugly name
for the feature gate. (The attribute name was deliberately selected to
be ugly looking.)
Implement cannot-assume-parametricity (CAP) from RFC 1238, and add the
UGEH attribute.
----
Note that we check for the attribute attached to the dtor method, not
the Drop impl.
(This is just to match the specification of RFC and the tests; I am
not wedded to this approach.)
