This is an implementation of the rustc bits of [RFC 403][rfc]. This adds a new
flag to the compiler, `-l`, as well as tweaking the `include!` macro (and
related source-centric macros).
The compiler's new `-l` flag is used to link libraries in from the command line.
This flag stacks with `#[link]` directives already found in the program. The
purpose of this flag, also stated in the RFC, is to ease linking against native
libraries which have wildly different requirements across platforms and even
within distributions of one platform. This flag accepts a string of the form
`NAME[:KIND]` where `KIND` is optional or one of dylib, static, or framework.
This is roughly equivalent to if the equivalent `#[link]` directive were just
written in the program.
The `include!` macro has been modified to recursively expand macros to allow
usage of `concat!` as an argument, for example. The use case spelled out in RFC
403 was for `env!` to be used as well to include compile-time generated files.
The macro also received a bit of tweaking to allow it to expand to either an
expression or a series of items, depending on what context it's used in.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/403
I think it helps to show that the variables introduced in match blocks are indeed independent from the matched variable `x` (especially when `x` is still reachable inside those blocks and might be useful), so this renames them accordingly. Maybe some linter (or language-level warning?) will eventually warn about shadowing `x` in such cases. ;)
I’m not super happy about the matching-on-range example, as it’s too contrived (`e` and `x` are exactly the same here), but I couldn’t come up with something both simple and non-redundant.
I just found this patch which at some point solved a problem I encountered. Unfortunately I apparently dropped it before I managed to write a test case. I'll try to dig up the code that triggered the issue.
When building for multiple targets, the initial 'make' invocation
always fails. The missing build stamp causes clean-llvm to be
invoked, but clean-llvm cleans *all* llvm builds. So what happens
is that 1) all llvm's are cleaned (a no-op), 2) llvm-${target1}
builds, 3) all llvm's are cleaned (deleting llvm-${target1}),
4) llvm-${target2} is built, 5) the remaining build for ${target1}
fails because llvm does not exist.
This makes the clean operation only clean the correct llvm build.
Should greatly reduce bot failures.
When building for multiple targets, the initial 'make' invocation
always fails. The missing build stamp causes clean-llvm to be
invoked, but clean-llvm cleans *all* llvm builds. So what happens
is that 1) all llvm's are cleaned (a no-op), 2) llvm-${target1}
builds, 3) all llvm's are cleaned (deleting llvm-${target1}),
4) llvm-${target2} is built, 5) the remaining build for ${target1}
fails because llvm does not exist.
This makes the clean operation only clean the correct llvm build.
Should greatly reduce bot failures.
closes#17670
[breaking-change]
Traits must be object-safe if they are to be used in trait objects. This might require splitting a trait into object-safe and non-object-safe parts.
Some standard library traits in std::io have been split - Reader has new traits BytesReader (for the bytes method) and AsRefReader (for by_ref), Writer has new trait AsRefWriter (for by_ref). All these new traits have blanket impls, so any type which implements Reader or Writer (respectively) will have an implmentation of the new traits. To fix your code, you just need to `use` the new trait.
Simpler, safer and shorter, in the same spirit of the current version, and the
same performances.
@mahkoh please review, I think I didn't change any performances related thing.
This in-progress PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/17489.
I made the code changes in this commit, next is to go through alllllllll the documentation and fix various things.
- Rename column headings as appropriate, `# Panics` for panic conditions and `# Errors` for `Result`s.
- clean up usage of words like 'fail' in error messages
Anything else to add to the list, @aturon ? I think I should leave the actual functions with names like `slice_or_fail` alone, since you'll get to those in your conventions work?
I'm submitting just the code bits now so that we can see it separately, and I also don't want to have to keep re-building rust over and over again if I don't have to 😉
Listing all the bits so I can remember as I go:
- [x] compiler-rt
- [x] compiletest
- [x] doc
- [x] driver
- [x] etc
- [x] grammar
- [x] jemalloc
- [x] liballoc
- [x] libarena
- [x] libbacktrace
- [x] libcollections
- [x] libcore
- [x] libcoretest
- [x] libdebug
- [x] libflate
- [x] libfmt_macros
- [x] libfourcc
- [x] libgetopts
- [x] libglob
- [x] libgraphviz
- [x] libgreen
- [x] libhexfloat
- [x] liblibc
- [x] liblog
- [x] libnative
- [x] libnum
- [x] librand
- [x] librbml
- [x] libregex
- [x] libregex_macros
- [x] librlibc
- [x] librustc
- [x] librustc_back
- [x] librustc_llvm
- [x] librustdoc
- [x] librustrt
- [x] libsemver
- [x] libserialize
- [x] libstd
- [x] libsync
- [x] libsyntax
- [x] libterm
- [x] libtest
- [x] libtime
- [x] libunicode
- [x] liburl
- [x] libuuid
- [x] llvm
- [x] rt
- [x] test
This includes updating the language items and marking what needs to
change after a snapshot.
If you do not use the standard library, the language items you need to
implement have changed. For example:
```rust
#[lang = "fail_fmt"] fn fail_fmt() -> ! { loop {} }
```
is now
```rust
#[lang = "panic_fmt"] fn panic_fmt() -> ! { loop {} }
```
Related, lesser-implemented language items `fail` and
`fail_bounds_check` have become `panic` and `panic_bounds_check`, as
well. These are implemented by `libcore`, so it is unlikely (though
possible!) that these two renamings will affect you.
[breaking-change]
Fix test suite
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]
Some minor wording fixes to the Closures chapter; my brain tripped a few times when reading it, so I tried to come up with something a bit smoother. I’m not a native speaker, so please do review this critically.
This PR changes the signature of several methods from `foo(self, ...)` to `foo(&self, ...)`/`foo(&mut self, ...)`, but there is no breakage of the usage of these methods due to the autoref nature of `method.call()`s. This PR also removes the lifetime parameter from some traits (`Trait<'a>` -> `Trait`). These changes break any use of the extension traits for generic programming, but those traits are not meant to be used for generic programming in the first place. In the whole rust distribution there was only one misuse of a extension trait as a bound, which got corrected (the bound was unnecessary and got removed) as part of this PR.
I've kept the commits as small and self-contained as possible for reviewing sake, but I can squash them when the review is over.
See this [table] to get an idea of what's left to be done. I've already DSTified [`Show`][show] and I'm working on `Hash`, but bootstrapping those changes seem to require a more recent snapshot (#18259 does the trick)
r? @aturon
cc #16918
[show]: https://github.com/japaric/rust/commits/show
[table]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MZ_iSNuzsoqeS-mtLXnj9m0hBYaH5jI8k9G_Ud8FT5g/edit?usp=sharing
Technically speaking, negative duration is not valid ISO 8601, but we need to
print it anyway. If `d` is a positive duration with the output `xxxxxxx`, then
the expected output of negative `-d` value is `-xxxxxxx`. I.e. the idea is to
print negative durations as positive with a leading minus sign.
Closes#18181.
Avoid O(n^2) performance by reconsidering the full set of obligations only when we are about to report an error (#18208). I found it is still important to consider the full set in order to make tests like `let x: Vec<_> = obligations.iter().collect()` work.
I think we lack the infrastructure to write a regression test for this, but when I did manual testing I found a massive reduction in type-checking time for extreme examples like those found in #18208 vs stage0.
f? @dotdash
This adds impls of Eq/Ord/PartialEq/PartialOrd/Show/Default to Arc<T>, and it
also removes the `Send + Sync` bound on the `Clone` impl of Arc to make it more
deriving-friendly. The `Send + Sync` requirement is still enforce on
construction, of course!
This adds impls of Eq/Ord/PartialEq/PartialOrd/Show/Default to Arc<T>, and it
also removes the `Send + Sync` bound on the `Clone` impl of Arc to make it more
deriving-friendly. The `Send + Sync` requirement is still enforce on
construction, of course!
