Fixes#29128
Most of the weird lifetime things and `inner` stuff seems like leftover cruft from `thread::scoped`. Should `JoinInner` just be removed/merged with `JoinHandle`?
Also is it okay to remove the `FnBox`? I'm not really sure why there were two allocations there...
This is for discoverability. If someone wants to know what ?Sized means, then
Sized will be the only keyword they can use to search; so even though this is
technically a language matter, it makes sense to document it where it will be
looked for.
This PR turns statically known erroneous code (e.g. numeric overflow) into a warning and continues normal code-generation to emit the same code that would have been generated without `check_const` detecting that the result can be computed at compile-time.
<del>It's not done yet, as I don't know how to properly emit a lint from trans. I can't seem to extract the real lint level of the item the erroneous expression is in.</del> It's an unconditional warning now.
r? @pnkfelix
cc @nikomatsakis
* [RFC 1229 text](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1229-compile-time-asserts.md)
* RFC PR: rust-lang/rfcs#1229
* tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28238
The escaped form isn't pretty, but this should be a very rare error.
Having a general binary-escaping string creation function might be a
good idea, though.
Closes#29122
The escaped form isn't pretty, but this should be a very rare error.
Having a general binary-escaping string creation function might be a
good idea, though.
Closes#29122
When going through the docs, it is not clear that binary files cannot be tested. Additionally, it is hard to find the proper structure of a Rust crate and it took me several hours of looking through the docs to find the crates and modules section. I think we can link to it from here and it will be beneficial to those who are coming to the language.
While working on #28711 I found out that
* src/libcoretest/clone.rs
* src/libcoretest/fmt/float.rs
* src/libcoretest/intrinsics.rs
are not used. I am not sure if removing them is the right way to go. If it makes sense to keep (and fix and enable) them, I would be happy to update the PR.
This PR solves the following issues (or at least help users to understand the problem):
```Rust
#![crate_name = "b"]
#![crate_type = "rlib"]
pub fn his_function_has_a_very_long_name_and_should_make_cargo_doc_explodes_because_it_will_want_to_make_a_filename_with_it_in_excess_of_the_max_filename_length_for_most_filesystem_this_is_not_yet_long_enough_i_need_moreis_function_has_a_very_long_name_and_should_make_cargo_doc_explodes_because_it_will_want_to_make_a_filename_with_it_in_excess_of_the_max_filename_length_for_most_filesystem_this_is_not_yet_long_enough_i_need_more_() {}
```
```Rust
#![crate_name = "b"]
#![crate_type = "rlib"]
pub struct his_function_has_a_very_long_name_and_should_make_cargo_doc_explodes_because_it_will_want_to_make_a_filename_with_it_in_excess_of_the_max_filename_length_for_most_filesystem_this_is_not_yet_long_enough_i_need_moreis_function_has_a_very_long_name_and_should_make_cargo_doc_explodes_because_it_will_want_to_make_a_filename_with_it_in_excess_of_the_max_filename_length_for_most_filesystem_this_is_not_yet_long_enough_i_need_more_;
```
For the maximum filename length chosen, @gkoz gave me [this link](http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/32834).
This change has two consequences:
1. It makes `Arc<T>` and `Rc<T>` covariant in `T`.
2. It causes the compiler to reject code that was unsound with respect
to dropck. See compile-fail/issue-29106.rs for an example of code that
no longer compiles. Because of this, this is a [breaking-change].
Fixes#29037.
Fixes#29106.
* Don't pass `-mno-compact-eh`, apparently not all compilers have this?
* Don't pass `+o32`, apparently LLVm doesn't recognize this
* Use `mipsel-linux-gnu` as a prefix instead of `mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu`, this
matches the ubuntu package at least!
