This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
Many of the core rust libraries have places that rely on integer
wrapping behaviour. These places have been altered to use the wrapping_*
methods:
* core:#️⃣:sip - A number of macros
* core::str - The `maximal_suffix` method in `TwoWaySearcher`
* rustc::util::nodemap - Implementation of FnvHash
* rustc_back::sha2 - A number of macros and other places
* rand::isaac - Isaac64Rng, changed to use the Wrapping helper type
Some places had "benign" underflow. This is when underflow or overflow
occurs, but the unspecified value is not used due to other conditions.
* collections::bit::Bitv - underflow when `self.nbits` is zero.
* collections:#️⃣:{map,table} - Underflow when searching an empty
table. Did cause undefined behaviour in this case due to an
out-of-bounds ptr::offset based on the underflowed index. However the
resulting pointers would never be read from.
* syntax::ext::deriving::encodable - Underflow when calculating the
index of the last field in a variant with no fields.
These cases were altered to avoid the underflow, often by moving the
underflowing operation to a place where underflow could not happen.
There was one case that relied on the fact that unsigned arithmetic and
two's complement arithmetic are identical with wrapping semantics. This
was changed to use the wrapping_* methods.
Finally, the calculation of variant discriminants could overflow if the
preceeding discriminant was `U64_MAX`. The logic in `rustc::middle::ty`
for this was altered to avoid the overflow completely, while the
remaining places were changed to use wrapping methods. This is because
`rustc::middle::ty::enum_variants` now throws an error when the
calculated discriminant value overflows a `u64`.
This behaviour can be triggered by the following code:
```
enum Foo {
A = U64_MAX,
B
}
```
This commit also implements the remaining integer operators for
Wrapped<T>.
Use the crates.io crate `rand` (version 0.1 should be a drop in
replacement for `std::rand`) and `rand_macros` (`#[derive_Rand]` should
be a drop-in replacement).
[breaking-change]
macro_rules! is like an item that defines a macro. Other items don't have a
trailing semicolon, or use a paren-delimited body.
If there's an argument for matching the invocation syntax, e.g. parentheses for
an expr macro, then I think that applies more strongly to the *inner*
delimiters on the LHS, wrapping the individual argument patterns.
followed by a semicolon.
This allows code like `vec![1i, 2, 3].len();` to work.
This breaks code that uses macros as statements without putting
semicolons after them, such as:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b)
assert!(c == d)
println(...);
}
It also breaks code that uses macros as items without semicolons:
local_data_key!(foo)
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
Add semicolons to fix this code. Those two examples can be fixed as
follows:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b);
assert!(c == d);
println(...);
}
local_data_key!(foo);
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
RFC #378.
Closes#18635.
[breaking-change]
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
