Combining them seemed like a good idea at the time, but turns out that
handling lifetimes separately makes it somewhat easier to handle cases
where we don't want the intrinsics, and let's you see more easily where
the start/end pairs are.
The issues that the comments referred to were fixed before the PR even
landed but we never got around to remove the hack of skipping the
lifetime start.
According to https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms679351(v=vs.85).aspx:
> If the function succeeds, the return value is the number of TCHARs stored in the output buffer,
> excluding the terminating null character.
_**Completely untested**_… since I have no Windows machine or anything of a sort to test this on.
r? @aturon
Reserving lower_bound bytes was just silly. It’d be perfectly reasonable
to have empty strings in the iterator, which could cause superfluous
reallocation of the string, or to have more than one byte per string,
which could cause additional reallocation (in practice it’ll balance
out). The added complexity of this logic is simply pointless, adding
a little bloat with no demonstrable advantage and slight disadvantage.
Currently, `early_error` and `early_warn` in `librustc::session` always
use `ColorConfig::Auto`. Modify them to follow the color configuration
set by the `--color` option.
As colored output is also printed during the early stage, parsing the
`--color` option should be done as early as possible. However, there are
still some cases when the output needs to be colored before knowing the
exact color settings. In these cases, it will be defaulted to
`ColorConfig::Auto`, which is the same as before.
Fixes#27879.
On Linux the flag is just ignored if it is not supported:
https://lwn.net/Articles/588444/
Still needs the values of O_CLOEXEC on the BSDs.
Touches #24237.
- All the libstd tests are passing in the optimized build against
a Zenfone2 and the x86 Android emulator.
I haven't tested the other libraries though.
Some hoedown FFI changes:
- `HOEDOWN_EXT_NO_INTRA_EMPHASIS` constant changed.
- Updated/tidied up all callback function signatures.
- All opaque data access has an additional layer of indirection for some reason (`hoedown_renderer_data`).
This also fixes#27862.
This handles the case where the #[main] function is buried deeper in
the ast than we search for #[test] functions. I'm not sure why one
would want to do that, but since it works in standard compilation it
should also work for tests.
This increases regionck performance greatly - type-checking on
librustc decreased from 9.1s to 8.1s. Because of Amdahl's law,
total performance is improved only by about 1.5% (LLVM wizards,
this is your opportunity to shine!).
before:
576.91user 4.26system 7:42.36elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1142192maxresident)k
after:
566.50user 4.84system 7:36.84elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1124304maxresident)k
I am somewhat worried really need to find out why we have this Red Queen's
Race going on here. Originally I suspected it may be a problem from RFC1214's
warnings, but it seems to be an effect from other changes.
However, the increase seems to be mostly in LLVM's time, so I guess
it's the LLVM wizards' problem.
r? @nikomatsakis
Reserving lower_bound bytes was just silly. It’d be perfectly reasonable
to have empty strings in the iterator, which could cause superfluous
reallocation of the string, or to have more than one byte per string,
which could cause additional reallocation (in practice it’ll balance
out). The added complexity of this logic is simply pointless, adding
a little bloat with no demonstrable advantage and slight disadvantage.
The functions is useful for all kinds of fat pointers, but get_len()
just feels so wrong for trait object fat pointers. Let's use get_meta()
because that's rather neutral.
This increases regionck performance greatly - type-checking on
librustc decreased from 9.1s to 8.1s. Because of Amdahl's law,
total performance is improved only by about 1.5% (LLVM wizards,
this is your opportunity to shine!).
before:
576.91user 4.26system 7:42.36elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1142192maxresident)k
after:
566.50user 4.84system 7:36.84elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1124304maxresident)k
I am somewhat worried really need to find out why we have this Red Queen's
Race going on here. Originally I suspected it may be a problem from RFC1214's
warnings, but it seems to be an effect from other changes.
However, the increase seems to be mostly in LLVM's time, so I guess
it's the LLVM wizards' problem.
