r? @nikomatsakis Impls can implement either zero or one traits; this has been true
more or less since we removed classes. So I got rid of the comments
saying "we should support multiple traits" and changed the code to
make it clear that we don't. This is just cleanup, and doesn't break
any existing tests.
Impls can implement either zero or one traits; this has been true
more or less since we removed classes. So I got rid of the comments
saying "we should support multiple traits" and changed the code to
make it clear that we don't. This is just cleanup, and doesn't break
any existing tests.
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.
This pull request adds 4 atomic intrinsics to the compiler, in preparation for #5042.
* `atomic_load(src: &int) -> int` performs an atomic sequentially consistent load.
* `atomic_load_acq(src: &int) -> int` performs an atomic acquiring load.
* `atomic_store(dst: &mut int, val: int)` performs an atomic sequentially consistent store.
* `atomic_store_rel(dst: &mut int, val: int)` performs an atomic releasing store.
For more information about the whole acquire/release thing: http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html
r?
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
Closes#6183.
The first commit changes the compiler's method of treating a `for` loop, and all the remaining commits are just dealing with the fallout.
The biggest fallout was the `IterBytes` trait, although it's really a whole lot nicer now because all of the `iter_bytes_XX` methods are just and-ed together. Sadly there was a huge amount of stuff that's `cfg(stage0)` gated, but whoever lands the next snapshot is going to have a lot of fun deleting all this code!
&str can be turned into @~str on demand, using to_owned(), so for
strings, we can create a specialized interner that accepts &str for
intern() and find() but stores and returns @~str.
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
Fix#6355 and #6272---we were not giving the correct index to the derefs that occur as part of the rooting process, resulting in extra copies and generally bogus behavior. Haven't quite produced the right test for this, but I thought I'd push the fix in the meantime. Test will follow shortly.
r? @graydon
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.
&str can be turned into @~str on demand, using to_owned(), so for
strings, we can create a specialized interner that accepts &str for
intern() and find() but stores and returns @~str.
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.
I just had `git apply` fix most of them and then did a quick skim over the diff to fix a few cases where it did the wrong thing (mostly replacing tabs with 4 spaces, when someone's editor had them at 8 spaces).
Recent demoding makes the visitor glue leak. It hasn't shown up in tests
because the box annihilator deletes the leaked boxes. This affects the
new scheduler though which does not yet have a box annihilator.
I don't think there's any great way to test this besides setting up
a task that doesn't run the box annihilator and I don't know that that's
a capability we want tasks to have.
I don't know how one would write a separate test for this sort of thing. Building the compiler, and `make check` worked, which should mean I didn't screw anything.
I've added trt_field_vtable, trt_field_box, and trt_field_tydesc, and
inserted them in place of the "magic numbers" used to access trait
object fields through GEPi().
The drop block has been deprecated for quite some time. This patch series removes support for parsing it and all the related machinery that made drop work.
As a side feature of all this, I also added the ability to annote fields in structs. This allows comments to be properly associated with an individual field. However, I didn't update `rustdoc` to integrate these comment blocks into the documentation it generates.
Cases like `Either<@int,()>` have a null case with at most one value but
a nonzero number of fields; if we misreport this, then bad things can
happen inside of, for example, pattern matching.
Closes#6117.
