A few pretty-printers were returning a quoted string from their
to_string method. It's preferable in gdb to return a lazy string and to
let gdb handle the display by having a "display_hint" method that
returns "string" -- it lets gdb settings (like "set print ...") work, it
handles corrupted strings a bit better, and it passes the information
along to IDEs.
Previously the constant index was reported as `[x of y]` or `[-x of y]` where
`x` was the offset and `y` the minimum length of the slice. The minus sign
wasn't in the right case since for `&[_, x, .., _, _]`, the error reported was
`[-1 of 4]`, and for `&[_, _, .., x, _]`, the error reported was `[2 of 4]`.
This commit fixes the sign so that the indexes 1 and -2 are reported, and
remove the ` of y` part of the message to make it more succinct.
fix logic error in #44269's `prune_cache_value_obligations`
We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not
obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix#43132. Because
of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its
original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master.
Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now
(I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before
we land this PR on nightly?
This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise
attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to
be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I
think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually
give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference
variables and filter everything else out.
We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not
obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix#43132. Because
of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its
original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master.
Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now
(I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before
we land this PR on nightly?
This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise
attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to
be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I
think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually
give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference
variables and filter everything else out.
Implement `and_modify` on `Entry`
## Motivation
`Entry`s are useful for allowing access to existing values in a map while also allowing default values to be inserted for absent keys. The existing API is similar to that of `Option`, where `or` and `or_with` can be used if the option variant is `None`.
The `Entry` API is, however, missing an equivalent of `Option`'s `and_then` method. If it were present it would be possible to modify an existing entry before calling `or_insert` without resorting to matching on the entry variant.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44733.
replace libc::res_init with res_init_if_glibc_before_2_26
The previous workaround for gibc's res_init bug is not thread-safe on
other implementations of libc, and it can cause crashes. Use a runtime
check to make sure we only call res_init when we need to, which is also
when it's safe. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43592.
~This PR is returning an InvalidData IO error if the glibc version string fails to parse. We could also have treated that case as "not glibc", and gotten rid of the idea that these functions could return an error. (Though I'm not a huge fan of ignoring error returns from `res_init` in any case.) Do other folks agree with these design choices?~
I'm pretty new to hacking on libstd. Is there an easy way to build a toy rust program against my changes to test this, other than doing an entire `sudo make install` on my system? What's the usual workflow?
Improve resolution of associated types in declarative macros 2.0
Make various identifier comparisons for associated types (and sometimes other associated items) hygienic.
Now declarative macros 2.0 can use `Self::AssocTy`, `TyParam::AssocTy`, `Trait<AssocTy = u8>` where `AssocTy` is an associated type of a trait `Trait` visible from the macro. Also, `Trait` can now be implemented inside the macro and specialization should work properly (fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/40847#issuecomment-310867299).
r? @jseyfried or @eddyb
incr compilation struct_defs.rs
I am prematurely openeing this as I need mentoring help from @michaelwoerister (also pinged @nikomatsakis)
First, is this the right approach for these changes?
Second, I'm a bit confused by the results so far.
- Changing `TupleStructFieldType(i32)` -> `...(u32)` changes only Hir and HirBody, not TypeOfItem
- Chaning `TupleStructAddField(i32)` -> `...(i32, u32)` *does* change TypeOfItem
This seems wrong. I feel like it should change TypeOfItem in both cases. Is this a bug in incr compilation or is it expected?
Faster compile times for release builds with llvm fix
Run global optimizations after the inliner to avoid spending time on optimizing dead code.
fixes#44655
The previous workaround for gibc's res_init bug is not thread-safe on
other implementations of libc, and it can cause crashes. Use a runtime
check to make sure we only call res_init when we need to, which is also
when it's safe. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43592.
There are a few exceptions to the rule that Arc/Rc are immutable. Rather
than dig into the details, add "generally" to hint at this difference,
as it's kind of a distraction at this point in the docs.
Additionally, Arc's docs were slightly different here generally, so add
in both the existing language and the exception.
Fixes#44105
`EndRegion` do not always correspond to borrow-data entries
Remove assertion that the argument to every `EndRegion` correspond to some dataflow-tracked borrow-data entry.
Fix#44828
(The comment thread on the aforementioned issue discusses why its best to just remove this assertion.)
