r? @alexcrichton On most platforms, the time granularity is 1 sec or more, so comparing
dates in tests that check whether rebuilding did or didn't happen leads
to spurious failures. Instead, test the same thing by making an output
file read-only and trapping attempts to write to it.
Instead of scrutinizing modification times in rustpkg tests,
change output files to be read-only and detect attempts to write
to them (hack suggested by Jack). This avoids time granularity problems.
As part of this change, I discovered that some dependencies weren't
getting written correctly (involving built executables and library
files), so this patch fixes that too.
This partly addresses #9441, but one test (test_rebuild_when_needed)
is still ignored on Linux.
This stops labeling everything as "is private" when in fact the destination may
be public. Instead, the clause "is inaccessible" is used and the private part of
the flag is called out with a "is private" message.
Closes#9793
As discovered in #9925, it turns out that we weren't using jemalloc on most
platforms. Additionally, on some platforms we were using it incorrectly and
mismatching the libc version of malloc with the jemalloc version of malloc.
Additionally, it's not clear that using jemalloc is indeed a large performance
win in particular situtations. This could be due to building jemalloc
incorrectly, or possibly due to using jemalloc incorrectly, but it is unclear at
this time.
Until jemalloc can be confirmed to integrate correctly on all platforms and has
verifiable large performance wins on platforms as well, it shouldn't be part of
the default build process. It should still be available for use via the
LD_PRELOAD trick on various architectures, but using it as the default allocator
for everything would require guaranteeing that it works in all situtations,
which it currently doesn't.
Closes#9925
As discovered in #9925, it turns out that we weren't using jemalloc on most
platforms. Additionally, on some platforms we were using it incorrectly and
mismatching the libc version of malloc with the jemalloc version of malloc.
Additionally, it's not clear that using jemalloc is indeed a large performance
win in particular situtations. This could be due to building jemalloc
incorrectly, or possibly due to using jemalloc incorrectly, but it is unclear at
this time.
Until jemalloc can be confirmed to integrate correctly on all platforms and has
verifiable large performance wins on platforms as well, it shouldn't be part of
the default build process. It should still be available for use via the
LD_PRELOAD trick on various architectures, but using it as the default allocator
for everything would require guaranteeing that it works in all situtations,
which it currently doesn't.
Closes#9925
Previously an ExprLit was created *per byte* causing a huge increase in memory
bloat. This adds a new `lit_binary` to contain a literal of binary data, which
is currently only used by the include_bin! syntax extension. This massively
speeds up compilation times of the shootout-k-nucleotide-pipes test
before:
time: 469s
memory: 6GB
assertion failure in LLVM (section too large)
after:
time: 2.50s
memory: 124MB
Closes#2598
Previously an ExprLit was created *per byte* causing a huge increase in memory
bloat. This adds a new `lit_binary` to contain a literal of binary data, which
is currently only used by the include_bin! syntax extension. This massively
speeds up compilation times of the shootout-k-nucleotide-pipes test
before:
time: 469s
memory: 6GB
assertion failure in LLVM (section too large)
after:
time: 2.50s
memory: 124MB
Closes#2598
d4a32386f3 broke these since slice_to() and slice_from() must get character
boundaries, and arbitrary needle lengths don't necessarily map to character
boundaries of the haystack.
This also adds new tests that would have caught this bug.
I've implemented analysis support for the [GCC '=' write-only inline asm constraint modifier](http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Modifiers.html). I had more changes, for '+' (read+write) as well, but it turns out LLVM doesn't support '+' at all.
I've removed the need for wrapping each output in ExprAddrOf, as that would require unwrapping almost everywhere and it was harder to reason about in borrowck than ExprAssign's LHS.
With this change, rustc will treat (in respect to validity of accessing a local) code like this:
```rust
let x: int;
unsafe {
asm!("mov $1, $0" : "=r"(x) : "r"(5u));
}
```
as if it were this:
```rust
let x : int;
x = 5;
```
Previously, the local was required to be both mutable and initialized, and the write effect wasn't recorded.
d4a32386f3 broke these since slice_to() and slice_from() must get character
boundaries, and arbitrary needle lengths don't necessarily map to character
boundaries of the haystack.
This also adds new tests that would have caught this bug.
Refactors parsing of numerical literals to make it more readable.
Removes 'float'/the 'f' literal suffix and invalid character literals ''' and '\'.
Also makes attribute highlighting more robust and allows urls in attributes to be recognized.
Refactors parsing of numerical literals to make it more readable.
Removes 'float'/the 'f' literal suffix and invalid character literals ''' and '\'.
Also makes attribute highlighting more robust and allows urls in attributes to be recognized.
This was just incorrectly handled before, the path component shouldn't be looked
at at all (we used absolute paths everywhere instead of relative to the current
module location).
Closes#9861
This was just incorrectly handled before, the path component shouldn't be looked
at at all (we used absolute paths everywhere instead of relative to the current
module location).
Closes#9861
The code generation previously assumed a reference could not alter the
value in a way the destructor would notice. This is an incorrect
assumption for `&mut`, and is also incorrect for an `&` pointer to a
non-`Freeze` type.
Closes#7972
The code generation previously assumed a reference could not alter the
value in a way the destructor would notice. This is an incorrect
assumption for `&mut`, and is also incorrect for an `&` pointer to a
non-`Freeze` type.
Closes#7972
Hello,
First time rust contributor here, please let me know if I need to sort out the contribution agreement for this.
I picked issue #9755 to dip my toe in the water, this pull request isn't quite complete though as I have not updated the documentation. The reason for this is that I haven't tracked down why this feature is gated so I don't feel I can write a justification of the same quality as the other features have been documented.
If someone would like to explain or point me at a mail thread I am happy to update with this change.
Hopefully I have understood the process of converting the old flag into a directive correctly.
Also just to call out what I am sure if a known quirk when adding feature directives, you can't build this code unless you have a snapshot of the compiler which knows about the feature directive. Chicken and the egg. I split the change into two commits, the first should be able to build a snapshot that can compile the second.
