This commit cleans out a large amount of deprecated APIs from the standard
library and some of the facade crates as well, updating all users in the
compiler and in tests as it goes along.
This is a deprecated attribute that is slated for removal, and it also affects
all implementors of the trait. This commit removes the attribute and fixes up
implementors accordingly. The primary implementation which was lost was the
ability to compare `&[T]` and `Vec<T>` (in that order).
This change also modifies the `assert_eq!` macro to not consider both directions
of equality, only the one given in the left/right forms to the macro. This
modification is motivated due to the fact that `&[T] == Vec<T>` no longer
compiles, causing hundreds of errors in unit tests in the standard library (and
likely throughout the community as well).
cc #19470
[breaking-change]
The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
Also in the output of the command we can see:
```
test test::it_works ... ok
```
So I think the name of the module was meant to be "test"
The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
This was originally used to set up the guessing game, but that no longer
exists. This version uses `old_io`, and updating it involves talking
about `&mut` and such, which we haven't covered yet. So, for now, let's
just remove it.
Fixes#23760
curl's progress meter would otherwise interfere with sudo's password prompt.
In addition, add the -f flag to make sure 4xx status codes are treated as errors.
r? @brson
This attribute has been deprecated in favor of #[should_panic]. This also
updates rustdoc to no longer accept the `should_fail` directive and instead
renames it to `should_panic`.
Was reading the 'Looping' section of the book and was puzzled why the last example uses `0u32..10` when the others don't. Tried it out without and it seems to work, so I figured it should just be `0..10`. If there is a reason it needs to be `0u32..10` it should be explained in the text (I'd offer to do it but I have no idea).
r? @steveklabnik
This attribute has been deprecated in favor of #[should_panic]. This also
updates rustdoc to no longer accept the `should_fail` directive and instead
renames it to `should_panic`.
Reject specialized Drop impls.
See Issue #8142 for discussion.
This makes it illegal for a Drop impl to be more specialized than the original item.
So for example, all of the following are now rejected (when they would have been blindly accepted before):
```rust
struct S<A> { ... };
impl Drop for S<i8> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete type
struct T<'a> { ... };
impl Drop for T<'static> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete region
struct U<A> { ... };
impl<A:Clone> Drop for U<A> { ... } // error: added extra type requirement
struct V<'a,'b>;
impl<'a,'b:a> Drop for V<'a,'b> { ... } // error: added extra region requirement
```
Due to examples like the above, this is a [breaking-change].
(The fix is to either remove the specialization from the `Drop` impl, or to transcribe the requirements into the struct/enum definition; examples of both are shown in the PR's fixed to `libstd`.)
----
This is likely to be the last thing blocking the removal of the `#[unsafe_destructor]` attribute.
Fix#8142Fix#23584
See Issue 8142 for discussion.
This makes it illegal for a Drop impl to be more specialized than the
original item.
So for example, all of the following are now rejected (when they would
have been blindly accepted before):
```rust
struct S<A> { ... };
impl Drop for S<i8> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete type
struct T<'a> { ... };
impl Drop for T<'static> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete region
struct U<A> { ... };
impl<A:Clone> Drop for U<A> { ... } // error: added extra type requirement
struct V<'a,'b>;
impl<'a,'b:a> Drop for V<'a,'b> { ... } // error: added extra region requirement
```
Due to examples like the above, this is a [breaking-change].
(The fix is to either remove the specialization from the `Drop` impl,
or to transcribe the requirements into the struct/enum definition;
examples of both are shown in the PR's fixed to `libstd`.)
----
This is likely to be the last thing blocking the removal of the
`#[unsafe_destructor]` attribute.
Includes two new error codes for the new dropck check.
Update run-pass tests to accommodate new dropck pass.
Update tests and docs to reflect new destructor restriction.
----
Implementation notes:
We identify Drop impl specialization by not being as parametric as the
struct/enum definition via unification.
More specifically:
1. Attempt unification of a skolemized instance of the struct/enum
with an instance of the Drop impl's type expression where all of
the impl's generics (i.e. the free variables of the type
expression) have been replaced with unification variables.
2. If unification fails, then reject Drop impl as specialized.
3. If unification succeeds, check if any of the skolemized
variables "leaked" into the constraint set for the inference
context; if so, then reject Drop impl as specialized.
4. Otherwise, unification succeeded without leaking skolemized
variables: accept the Drop impl.
We identify whether a Drop impl is injecting new predicates by simply
looking whether the predicate, after an appropriate substitution,
appears on the struct/enum definition.
