borrow checker and generalize what moves are allowed. Fixes a nasty
bug or two in the pattern move checking code. Unifies dataflow code
used for initialization and other things. First step towards
once fns. Everybody wins.
Fixes#4384. Fixes#4715. cc once fns (#2202), optimizing local moves (#5016).
mentioned in #2625.
This change makes the module more oriented around
Process values instead of having to deal with process ids
directly.
Apart from issues mentioned in #2625, other changes include:
- Changing the naming to be more consistent - Process/process
is now used instead of a mixture of Program/program and
Process/process.
- More docs/tests.
Some io/scheduler related issues remain (mentioned in #2625).
Changes the int/uint modules to all use macros instead of using the `merge` attribute. It would be nice to have #4375 resolved as well for this, but that can probably come at a later date.
Closes#4219.
r? @nikomatsakis The way we deal with unreachable expressions in trans is pretty ad hoc,
but this at least doesn't make it worse, and eliminates the LLVM
assertion failure reported in #5741.
The way we deal with unreachable expressions in trans is pretty ad hoc,
but this at least doesn't make it worse, and eliminates the LLVM
assertion failure reported in #5741.
I don't have a strong opinion on the function vs. method, but there's no point in having both. I'd like to make a `repeat` adaptor like Python/Haskell for turning a value into an infinite stream of the value, so this has to at least be renamed.
fail!() used to require owned strings but can handle static strings
now. Also, it can pass its arguments to fmt!() on its own, no need for
the caller to call fmt!() itself.
The default versions (atomic_load and atomic_store) are sequentially consistent.
The atomic_load_acq intrinsic acquires as described in [1].
The atomic_store_rel intrinsic releases as described in [1].
[1]: http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html
**Caveat**: With the current commit, this check only works for `match`s, the checks (incorrectly) do not run for patterns in `let`s, and invalid/unsafe code compiles.
I don't know how to fix this, I experimented with some things to try to make let patterns and match patterns run on the same code (since this would presumably fix many of the other unsoundness issues of let-patterns, e.g. #6225), but I don't understand enough of the code. (I think I heard someone talking about a fix for `let` being in progress?)
Fixes#6344 and #6341.
This allows macros to create tests and benchmarks.
This is possibly unsound (I've got no idea, but it seemed to work), and being able to programmatically generate benchmarks to compare several implementations of similar algorithms is nice.
This fixes the issue described in #4202.
From what I understood of the code, when we reexport a trait in a submodule using e.g. "pub use foo::SomeTrait", we were not previously making an effort to reexport the static methods on that trait.
I'm new to the Rust code base (and the Rust language itself) so my approach may not be kosher, but this patch works by changing the encoder to include the static methods associated with traits.
I couldn't see any tests for this area of the code, so I didn't really have any examples to go by. If tests are needed, I'm happy to work through that if I can get some assistance to do so.
Use a bitset to represent built-in bounds. There are several places in the language where only builtin bounds (aka kinds) will be accepted, e.g. on closures, destructor type parameters perhaps, and on trait types.
r? @brson
Adds an `uninit` intrinsic.
It's just an empty function, so llvm optimizes it down to nothing.
I changed all of the `init` intrinsic usages to `uninit` where it seemed appropriate to.
its own type. Use a bitset to represent built-in bounds. There
are several places in the language where only builtin bounds (aka kinds)
will be accepted, e.g. on closures, destructor type parameters perhaps,
and on trait types.
Hi there,
Really enjoying Rust. Noticed a few typos so I searched around for a few more--here's some fixes.
Ran `make check` and got `summary of 24 test runs: 4868 passed; 0 failed; 330 ignored`.
Thanks!
Sean
At the moment this only includes type checking and there is no code generation support yet. I wanted to get the design reviewed first.
From discussion with @graydon at #5841, re-implemented as `#[simd]` attribute on structs.
Progressing towards #3499.
r? @ILyoan
This pulls all the logic for discovering the crate entry point into a new pass (out of resolve and typeck), then changes it so that main is only looked for at the crate level (`#[main]` can still be used anywhere).
I don't understand the special android logic here and worry that I may have broken it.
This "finishes" the generic deriving code (which I started in #5640), in the sense it supports everything that I can think of being useful. (Including lifetimes and type parameters on methods and traits, arguments and return values of (almost) any type, static methods.)
It closes#6149, but met with #6257, so the following doesn't work:
```rust
#[deriving(TotalEq)]
struct Foo<'self>(&'self int);
```
(It only fails for `TotalOrd`, `TotalEq` and `Clone`, since they are the only ones that call a method directly on sub-elements of the type, which means that the auto-deref interferes with the pointer.)
It also makes `Rand` (chooses a random variant, fills the fields with random values, including recursively for recursive types) and `ToStr` (`x.to_str()` is the same as `fmt!("%?", x)`) derivable, as well as converting IterBytes to the generic code (which made the code 2.5x shorter, more robust and added support for tuple structs).
({En,De}codable are trickier, so I'll convert them over later.)
Closes#5392 and #5393
I implemented the pop/swap methods for TrieMap/TreeMap/SmallIntMap, and I also updated all of them such that pop isn't just a remove/insert, but rather it's all done in one operation.
One thing I did notice is that with default methods it'd be really nice to define `insert` and `remove` in terms of `pop` and `swap` (or vice versa, just to have them available).
