The typechecker previously passed around a boolean return flag to
indicate whether it saw something with type _|_ (that is, something
it knows at compile-time will definitely diverge) and also had some
manual checks for the `ty_err` pseudo-type that represents a previous
type error. This was because the typing rules implemented by the
typechecker didn't properly propagate _|_ and ty_err. I fixed it.
This also required changing expected error messages in a few tests,
as now we're printing out fewer derived errors -- in fact, at this
point we should print out no derived errors, so report any that
you see (ones that include "[type error]") as bugs.
the assert_eq! macro compares its arguments and fails if they're not
equal. It's more informative than fail_unless!, because it explicitly
writes the given and expected arguments on failure.
Refactor the self-info so that the def-id is carried in ty_self()and the fn_ctxt doesn't need any self_info field at all. Pull out explicit self transformation into `check_method`. Step towards fixing `fn(&self)` to have a distinct lifetime. (cc #4846)
r? @catamorphism
Removes a lot of instances of `/*bad*/ copy` throughout libsyntax/librustc. On the plus side, this shaves about 2s off of the runtime when compiling `librustc` with optimizations.
Ideally I would have run a profiler to figure out which copies are the most critical to remove, but in reality there was a liberal amount of `git grep`s along with some spot checking and removing the easy ones.
Partial Fix for #5265
- Enabling LLVM ARM ehabi option.
- Add ARM debug information manually for ccall.s
- Compile object file using Android-NDK.
Current LLVM trunk version can generate ARM debug information for assembly files but it is incomplete for object files. Unwinding on ARM can be done with LLVM trunk(the LLVM submodule of rust has problem on generating ARM debug information). See #5368
The Android-NDK detour(0f89eab) can be removed after LLVM has complete feature of generating ARM debug information for object file.
This would close#2761. I figured that if you're supplying your own custom message, you probably don't mind the stringification of the condition to not be in the message.
