Add some more wording to module documentation regarding how
`Arc::clone()` works, as some users have assumed cloning Arc's
to work via dereferencing to inner value as follows:
use std::sync::Arc;
let myarc = Arc::new(1);
let myarcref = myarc.clone();
assert!(1 == myarcref);
Instead of the actual mechanic of referencing the existing
Arc value:
use std::sync::Arg;
let myarc = Arc::new(1);
let myarcref = myarc.clone();
assert!(myarcref == &myarc); // not sure if assert could assert this
in the real world
create a valid DefIdTable for proc macro crates
At least the incremental compilation code, and a few other places in the
compiler, require the CrateMetadata for a loaded target crate to contain a
valid DefIdTable for the DefIds in the target.
Previously, the CrateMetadata for a proc macro contained the crate's
"host" DefIdTable, which is of course incompatible with the "target"
DefIdTable, causing ICEs. This creates a DefIdTable that properly refers
to the "proc macro" DefIds.
Fixes#49482.
r? @michaelwoerister
Should we beta-nominate this?
rustc: Suggest removing `extern crate` in 2018
This commit updates the `unused_extern_crates` lint to make automatic
suggestions about removing `extern crate` annotations in the 2018 edition. This
ended up being a little easier than originally though due to what's likely been
fixed issues in the resolver!
Closes#52829
Remove `AccumulateVec` and its uses.
It's basically just a less capable version of `SmallVec`.
FWIW, the only use of `ArrayVec` is now within `HybridIdxSet`.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Fix warnings about the `native` target-cpu
This fixes a regression from #53031 where specifying `-C target-cpu=native` is
printing a lot of warnings from LLVM about `native` being an unknown CPU. It
turns out that `native` is indeed an unknown CPU and we have to perform a
mapping to an actual CPU name, but this mapping is only performed in one
location rather than all locations we inform LLVM about the target CPU.
This commit centralizes the mapping of `native` to LLVM's value of the native
CPU, ensuring that all locations we inform LLVM about the `target-cpu` it's
never `native`.
Closes#53322
Miri engine cleanup
* Unify the two maps in memory to store the allocation and its kind together.
* Share the handling of statics between CTFE and miri: The miri engine always
uses "lazy" `AllocType::Static` when encountering a static. Acessing that
static invokes CTFE (no matter the machine). The machine only has any
influence when writing to a static, which CTFE outright rejects (but miri
makes a copy-on-write).
* Add an `AllocId` to by-ref consts so miri can use them as operands without
making copies.
* Move responsibilities around for the `eval_fn_call` machine hook: The hook
just has to find the MIR (or entirely take care of everything); pushing the
new stack frame is taken care of by the miri engine.
* Expose the intrinsics and lang items implemented by CTFE so miri does not
have to reimplement them.
* Allow Machine to hook into foreign statics (used by miri to get rid of some other hacks).
* Clean up function calling.
* Switch const sanity check to work on operands, not mplaces.
* Move const_eval out of rustc_mir::interpret, to make sure that it does not access private implementation details.
In particular, we can finally make `eval_operand` take `&self`. :-)
Should be merged after https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53609, across which I will rebase.
This script invokes the gdbgui graphical GDB front-end
with the Rust pretty printers loaded. The script does not install
gdbgui, that must be done manually.
This fixes a regression from #53031 where specifying `-C target-cpu=native` is
printing a lot of warnings from LLVM about `native` being an unknown CPU. It
turns out that `native` is indeed an unknown CPU and we have to perform a
mapping to an actual CPU name, but this mapping is only performed in one
location rather than all locations we inform LLVM about the target CPU.
This commit centralizes the mapping of `native` to LLVM's value of the native
CPU, ensuring that all locations we inform LLVM about the `target-cpu` it's
never `native`.
Closes#53322
add more Cortex-R targets
This expands on PR #53663 to complete the set of Cortex-R targets and builds
rust-std components for them.
r? @alexcrichton
each extra rust-std component (there's 4 of them) takes about 3 minutes to build
on my local machine. In terms of stability (LLVM codegen bugs) these new targets
should be as stable as the Cortex-M ones (e.g. `thumbv7m-none-eabi`).
If the extra build time is too much we can leave the rust-std components out for
now
closes#53663
cc @paoloteti
Restructure hir::map::Node and hir::map::Entry
- Moves `hir::map::Node` to `hir::Node` and removes the `Node*` prefix from its variants.
- Changes `hir::map::Entry` to a struct `hir::map::Entry`.
- Removes the `Node*` prefix from each of `AnnNode`s variants.
r? @eddyb
document the platform-specific behavior of Command::current_dir
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37868.
Here's my initial wording:
> Note that if the program path is relative (e.g. `"./script.sh"`), the interaction between that path and `current_dir` varies across platforms. Windows currently ignores `current_dir` when locating the program, but Unix-like systems interpret the program path relative to `current_dir`. These implementation details aren't considered stable, and it's recommended to call `canonicalize` to get an absolute program path instead of using relative paths and `current_dir` together.
I'd like to get feedback on:
- _Should_ we consider those details stable? It might be disruptive to change them, regardless of what I can get away with claiming in docs :)
- Is `canonicalize` an appropriate recommendation? As discussed in #37868 above, there are reasons it's not called automatically in the `Command` implementation.
Warn on anon params in 2015 edition
cc #41686https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2522
cc @Centril @nikomatsakis
TODO:
- [x] Make sure the tests pass.
- [x] Make sure there is rustfix-able suggestion. Current plan is to just suggest `_ : Foo`
- [x] Add a rustfix ui test.
EDIT: It seems I already did the last two in #48309
move the Pin API into its own module for centralized documentation
This implements the change proposed by @withoutboats in #49150, as suggested by @RalfJung in the review of #53104,
along with the documentation that was originally in it, that was deemed more appropriate in module-level documentation.
r? @RalfJung
