Adds an assert_eq! macro that asserts that its two arguments are equal. Error messages can therefore be somewhat more informative than a simple assert, because the error message includes "expected" and "given" values.
the assert_eq! macro compares its arguments and fails if they're not
equal. It's more informative than fail_unless!, because it explicitly
writes the given and expected arguments on failure.
This would close#2761. I figured that if you're supplying your own custom message, you probably don't mind the stringification of the condition to not be in the message.
For bootstrapping purposes, this commit does not remove all uses of
the keyword "pure" -- doing so would cause the compiler to no longer
bootstrap due to some syntax extensions ("deriving" in particular).
Instead, it makes the compiler ignore "pure". Post-snapshot, we can
remove "pure" from the language.
There are quite a few (~100) borrow check errors that were essentially
all the result of mutable fields or partial borrows of `@mut`. Per
discussions with Niko I think we want to allow partial borrows of
`@mut` but detect obvious footguns. We should also improve the error
message when `@mut` is erroneously reborrowed.
Continuation of #5317. Actually use operands properly now, including any number of output operands.
Which means you can do things like call printf:
```Rust
fn main() {
unsafe {
do str::as_c_str(~"The answer is %d.\n") |c| {
let a = 42;
asm!("mov $0, %rdi\n\t\
mov $1, %rsi\n\t\
xorl %eax, %eax\n\t\
call _printf"
:
: "r"(c), "r"(a)
: "rdi", "rsi", "eax"
: "volatile","alignstack"
);
}
}
}
```
```
% rustc foo.rs
% ./foo
The answer is 42.
```
Or just add 2 numbers:
```Rust
fn add(a: int, b: int) -> int {
let mut c = 0;
unsafe {
asm!("add $2, $0"
: "=r"(c)
: "0"(a), "r"(b)
);
}
c
}
fn main() {
io::println(fmt!("%d", add(1, 2)));
}
```
```
% rustc foo.rs
% ./foo
3
```
Multiple outputs!
```Rust
fn addsub(a: int, b: int) -> (int, int) {
let mut c = 0;
let mut d = 0;
unsafe {
asm!("add $4, $0\n\t\
sub $4, $1"
: "=r"(c), "=r"(d)
: "0"(a), "1"(a), "r"(b)
);
}
(c, d)
}
fn main() {
io::println(fmt!("%?", addsub(5, 1)));
}
```
```
% rustc foo.rs
% ./foo
(6, 4)
```
This also classifies inline asm as RvalueStmtExpr instead of the somewhat arbitrary kind I made it initially. There are a few XXX's regarding what to do in the liveness and move passes.
r? @graydon
This removes `log` from the language. Because we can't quite implement it as a syntax extension (probably need globals at the least) it simply renames the keyword to `__log` and hides it behind macros.
After this the only way to log is with `debug!`, `info!`, etc. I figure that if there is demand for `log!` we can add it back later.
I am not sure that we ever agreed on this course of action, though I *think* there is consensus that `log` shouldn't be a statement.
This is the first in a series of patches I'm working on to clean up the code related to `deriving`. This patch allows
```
#[deriving_eq]
#[deriving_iter_bytes]
#[deriving_clone]
struct Foo { bar: uint }
```
to be replaced with:
```
#[deriving(Eq, IterBytes, Clone)]
struct Foo { bar: uint }
```
It leaves the old attributes alone for the time being.
Eventually I'd like to incorporate the new closest-match-suggestion infrastructure for mistyped trait names, and also pass the sub-attributes to the deriving code, so that the following will be possible:
```
#[deriving(TotalOrd(qux, bar))]
struct Foo { bar: uint, baz: char, qux: int }
```
This says to derive an `impl` in which the objects' `qux` fields are compared first, followed by `bar`, while `baz` is ignored in the comparison. If no fields are specified explicitly, all fields will be compared in the order they're defined in the `struct`. This might also be useful for `Eq`. Coming soon.
r?
`log` can polymorphically log anything, but debug!, etc. requires a format string. With this patch you can equivalently write `debug!(foo)` or `debug!("%?", foo)`.
I'm doing this because I was trying to remove `log` (replacing it with nothing, at least temporarily), but there are a number of logging statements that just want to print an arbitrary value and don't care about the format string.
I'm not entirely convinced this is a good change, since it overloads the implementation of these macros and makes their usage slightly more nuanced.
