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!
Stricter checking of stability attributes + enforcement of their invariants at compile time
(+ removed dead file librustc_front/attr.rs)
I intended to enforce use of `reason` for unstable items as well (it normally presents for new items), but it turned out too intrusive, many older unstable items don't have `reason`s.
r? @aturon
I'm studying how stability works and do some refactoring along the way, so it's probably not the last PR.
The text says it's a vector of floats, but the code actually uses a vector of integers. The type of the Vec doesn't really matter, so I just cut it from the text.
Fixes issue #29077.
There **are** API changing guidelines in the RFCs, so it might be prudent to put those there. But I'm leaving that up to another person. This PR just removes bad documentation.
