When compiling libsyntax this removes about 30k basic blocks that only
contain a single unconditional jump and reduces the peak memory usage by
about 10MB (from 681MB down to 671MB).
Sidestep warning about repeated E0045 `span_err!` invocation.
(That is, take the two expressions with the same message and unify them into one subroutine.)
Updated "Installing Rust" and "After installation" to provide additional guidance to Windows users on including Rust in the Path system variable.
r? @steveklabnik
These provide various special readers, so point their docs to their
constructor functions in a manner consistent with everything else.
r? @alexcrichton
This is a resubmission of my previous git failure - apologies. Just fixing up a wording error that was discovered in E0253 after the r.
r? @Manishearth
Mostly through adding examples.
r? @alexcrichton
I'm going to be doing a bunch of these today, but I figured I'd keep it one PR per struct, since the last 'all the things in one PR' ended up taking a week to actually land.
The original test program exercised the (garbage-collected heap)
allocation form `box (GC) ...`, feeding an instance of `Structure` in
as the expression. This obviously went away when `GC` went away, but
there's no reason for us not to include an appropriate unit test here
for the same form, just for heap-allocated instances of `Structure`.
The two tests are separate since the current implementation performs
the feature gate checks at distinct phases in the compilation, with an
`abort_if_errors` calls separating them.
(Over time the stability checking has gotten more finicky; in
particular one must attach the (whole) span of the original `in PLACE
BLOCK` expression to the injected references to unstable paths, as
noted in the comments.)
call `push_compiler_expansion` during the placement-`in` expansion.
Even after expansion, the generated expressions still track depth of
such pushes (i.e. how often you have "pushed" without a corresponding
"pop"), and we add a rule that in a context with a positive
`push_unsafe!` depth, it is effectively an `unsafe` block context.
(This way, we can inject code that uses `unsafe` features, but still
contains within it a sub-expression that should inherit the outer
safety checking setting, outside of the injected code.)
This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably
should be feature-gated forever (if possible).
ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
