Rustdoc takes the first paragraph as a summary, so having a huge
paragraph that ends with introducing an example looked somewhat wrong on
the module page.
Reword "Writing the logic" paragraph to prevent `unwrap` being confused for a macro (and other small changes to improve the flow of the paragraph).
cc @steveklabnik
I did some preliminary editing work with No Starch on the first chapter of the book, and here's some of the results. We're going to want to return to this later when @brson etc's new rustup work is done, so this is mostly just a first pass.
But, we agreed that having separate chapters for each of this bit of intro is a bit excessive. So let's move all of this intro stuff into one chapter.
I'd appreciate a careful review of this, as there was also some confusion about some things, which resulted in me taking one huge markdown file apart and splitting it back up, as well as some editor issues, so I _think_ this looks good, but double checking things matters!
/cc @aturon
If you try to put something that's bigger than a char into a char
literal, you get an error:
fn main() {
let c = 'ஶ்ரீ';
}
error: unterminated character constant:
This is a very compiler-centric message. Yes, it's technically
'unterminated', but that's not what you, the user did wrong.
Instead, this commit changes it to
error: character literal that's larger than a char:
As this actually tells you what went wrong.
Fixes#28851
If you try to put something that's bigger than a char into a char
literal, you get an error:
fn main() {
let c = 'ஶ்ரீ';
}
error: unterminated character constant:
This is a very compiler-centric message. Yes, it's technically
'unterminated', but that's not what you, the user did wrong.
Instead, this commit changes it to
error: character literal may only contain one codepoint
As this actually tells you what went wrong.
Fixes#28851
The "m" memory constraint in inline assembly is broken (generates incorrect code or triggers LLVM asserts) and should not be used. Instead, indirect memory operands should be used with "\*m", "=\*m" and "+\*m".
Clang does this transparently by transforming "m" constraints into "\*m" indirect constraints, but for now just being able to use "\*m" directly is enough since asm! isn't stable.
While "\*m" works fine as an input operand, "=\*m" and "+\*m" need to be specified as input operands because they take a pointer value as an input. This PR relaxes the constraint checker to allow constraints starting with "=" or "+" if the constraint string contains a "\*", which indicates an indirect operand.
This (indirectly) fixes these issues: #29382, #16383 and #13366. The code will need to be changed to use "\*m" instead of "m".
Function arguments that are small aggregates get passed as integer types
instead. To correctly handle that, we need to use store_ty instead of
plain Store.
This branch implements a variant of trans that is based on MIR. It is very incomplete (intentionally), and had only the goal of laying out enough work to enable more incremental follow-on patches. Currently, only fns tagged with `#[rustc_mir]` use the new trans code. I plan to build up a meta-issue as well that tracks the various "not-yet-implemented" points. The only fn that has been tested so far is this amazingly complex "spike" fn:
```rust
#[rustc_mir]
fn sum(x: i32, y: i32) -> i32 {
x + y
}
```
In general, the most interesting commit is the last one. There are some points on which I would like feedback from @rust-lang/compiler:
- I did not use `Datum`. Originally, I thought that maybe just a `ValueRef` would be enough but I wound up with two very simple structures, `LvalueRef` and `OperandRef`, that just package up a `ValueRef` and a type. Because of MIR's structure, you don't wind up mixing by-ref and by-value so much, and I tend to think that a thinner abstraction layer is better here, but I'm not sure.
- Related to the above, I expect that sooner or later we will analyze temps (and maybe variables too) to find those whose address is never taken and which are word-sized and which perhaps meet a few other criteria. For those, we'll probably want to avoid the alloca, just because it means prettier code.
- I generally tried to re-use data structures from elsewhere in trans, though I'm sure we can trim these down.
- I didn't do any debuginfo primarily because it seems to want node-ids and we have only spans. I haven't really read into that code so I don't know what's going on there.
r? @nrc
`resolve_identifier` used to mark a variable as an upvar when used within a closure. However, the function is also used for the "unnecessary qualification" lint, which would mark paths whose last component had the same name as a local as upvars.
Fixes#29522
r? @eddyb
I think this should fix the test failures in debug mode from #29492
The assertion was written incorrectly, and I don't like the way the new assertion is written, but I _think_ it does the right thing now.
