Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.
This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.
A better solution would be to add higher-rank lifetime support to procs.
However, this would be a lot of work for a feature we want to remove in
favor of unboxed closures. The corresponding "real fix" is #15067.
Closes#14036.
[breaking-change]
Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.
Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.
Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.
Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.
Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.
Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.
The JSON spec requires that these special values be serialized as "null"; the current serialization breaks any conformant JSON parser. So encoding needs to output "null", `to_json` on floating-point types can return `Null` as well as `Number` values, and reading a `Null` value when specifically expecting a number should be interpreted as NaN. There's no way to round-trip Infinity through JSON.
This is my first attempt at both writing Rust and opening pull requests, so please dial your derp detector up to eleven when reviewing. A `rustc --test lib.rs` in `libserialize` passes all tests; a `make check` of the whole tree fails with the error below, but it doesn't look obviously related and the docs say that `make check` is known to be flaky on Windows.
---- [compile-fail] compile-fail/svh-change-significant-cfg.rs stdout ----
task '[compile-fail] compile-fail/svh-change-significant-cfg.rs' failed at 'called `Result::
unwrap()` on an `Err` value: couldn't create file (end of file (unknown error); path=i686-pc-mingw32
\test\compile-fail\svh-a-base.err; mode=truncate; access=write)', C:\msys\home\Mike\rust\src\libcore
\result.rs:545
Incidentally, it may just be my lack of familiarity with the language and its idioms, but the duplication between `Encoder`/`PrettyEncoder` had a distinct code smell to it. The size of the file (~3500 lines) also made it a bit hard to navigate. Has there been any discussion of refactoring and/or breaking it up? I couldn't find anything in Issues except the ancient #9028.
This is built on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15162 . cccae83d92 is the only new commit, you may want to look at that rather than the whole diff.
Writing our first Rust program together. This is the most crucial step, so I go to a fairly deep level of detail. Future sections will move more quickly.
This has my voice *very strongly*. I'm not sure if it's too much. I'd find it okay if I had to tone it back, and I don't want it to be _too strong_, but clinical docs are boring.
It turns out that bindings introduced by 'for' loops were not treated hygienically. The fix for this is to make the 'for' expansion more like a macro; rather than expanding sub-pieces and then assembling them, we need to rewrite the for and then call expand again on the whole thing.
This PR includes a test and the fix.
It also contains a number of other things:
- unit tests for other forms of hygiene (currently ignored)
- a fix for the isaac.rs macro that (it turned out) was relying on capturing
- other miscellaneous cleanup and comments
The JSON spec requires that these special values be serialized as null; the current serialization breaks any conformant JSON parser. So encoding needs to output "null", to_json on floating-point types can return Null as well as Number, and reading null when specifically expecting a number should be interpreted as NaN. There's no way to round-trip Infinity.
This will break code like:
fn f(x: &mut int) {}
let mut a = box 1i;
f(a);
Change it to:
fn f(x: &mut int) {}
let mut a = box 1i;
f(&mut *a);
RFC 33; issue #10504.
[breaking-change]
r? @brson
vector-reference-to-unsafe-pointer-to-element cast if the type to be
casted to is not fully specified.
This is a conservative change to fix the user-visible symptoms of the
issue. A more flexible treatment would delay cast checks to after
function typechecking.
This can break code that did:
let x: *u8 = &([0, 0]) as *_;
Change this code to:
let x: *u8 = &([0, 0]) as *u8;
Closes#14893.
[breaking-change]
r? @alexcrichton
vector-reference-to-unsafe-pointer-to-element cast if the type to be
casted to is not fully specified.
This is a conservative change to fix the user-visible symptoms of the
issue. A more flexible treatment would delay cast checks to after
function typechecking.
This can break code that did:
let x: *u8 = &([0, 0]) as *_;
Change this code to:
let x: *u8 = &([0, 0]) as *u8;
Closes#14893.
[breaking-change]
Yes, it is important to be careful, but repeated emphasis about it is probably
not helpful — it starts to sound like you came for a tutorial but found a
finger-wagging lecture.
Even after I removed a few of these comments, there are still several left in
the text. That's probably fine! A couple of mentions of how this is dangerous
and you ought to be careful may be a good reminder to the reader.
After making the edits, I reflowed the paragraphs that I had touched, using
emacs's "M-x fill-paragraph", with fill-column equal to 70.
This will break code like:
fn f(x: &mut int) {}
let mut a = box 1i;
f(a);
Change it to:
fn f(x: &mut int) {}
let mut a = box 1i;
f(&mut *a);
RFC 33; issue #10504.
[breaking-change]
The f128 type has very little support in the compiler and the feature is
basically unusable today. Supporting half-baked features in the compiler can be
detrimental to the long-term development of the compiler, and hence this feature
is being removed.
Closes#14482 (std: Bring back half of Add on String)
Closes#15026 (librustc: Remove the fallback to `int` from typechecking.)
Closes#15119 (Add more description to c_str::unwrap().)
Closes#15120 (Add tests for #12470 and #14285)
Closes#15122 (Remove the cheat sheet.)
Closes#15126 (rustc: Always include the morestack library)
Closes#15127 (Improve ambiguous pronoun.)
Closes#15130 (Fix#15129)
Closes#15131 (Add the Guide, add warning to tutorial.)
Closes#15134 (Xfailed tests for hygiene, etc.)
Closes#15135 (core: Add stability attributes to Clone)
Closes#15136 (Some minor improvements to core::bool)
Closes#15137 (std: Add stability attributes to primitive numeric modules)
Closes#15141 (Fix grammar in tutorial)
Closes#15143 (Remove few FIXMEs)
Closes#15145 (Avoid unnecessary temporary on assignments)
Closes#15147 (Small improvements for metaprogramming)
Closes#15153 (librustc: Check function argument patterns for legality of by-move)
Closes#15154 (test: Add a test for regions, traits, and variance.)
Closes#15159 (rustc: Don't register syntax crates twice)
Closes#13816 (Stabilize version output for rustc and rustdoc)
Yes, it is important to be careful, but repeated emphasis about it is probably
not helpful — it starts to sound like you came for a tutorial but found a
finger-wagging lecture.
Even after I removed a few of these comments, there are still several left in
the text. That's probably fine! A couple of mentions of how this is dangerous
and you ought to be careful may be a good reminder to the reader.
After making the edits, I reflowed the paragraphs that I had touched, using
emacs's "M-x fill-paragraph", with fill-column equal to 70.
bindings.
This will break code that incorrectly did things like:
fn f(a @ box b: Box<String>) {}
Fix such code to not rely on undefined behavior.
Closes#12534.
[breaking-change]
