`TotalEq` is now just an assertion about the `Eq` impl of a
type (i.e. `==` is a total equality if a type implements `TotalEq`) so
the extra method is just confusing.
Also, a new method magically appeared as a hack to allow deriving to
assert that the contents of a struct/enum are also TotalEq, because the
deriving infrastructure makes it very hard to do anything but create a
trait method. (You didn't hear about this horrible work-around from me
:(.)
`Share` implies that all *reachable* content is *threadsafe*.
Threadsafe is defined as "exposing no operation that permits a data race if multiple threads have access to a &T pointer simultaneously". (NB: the type system should guarantee that if you have access to memory via a &T pointer, the only other way to gain access to that memory is through another &T pointer)...
Fixes#11781
cc #12577
What this PR will do
================
- [x] Add Share kind and
- [x] Replace usages of Freeze with Share in bounds.
- [x] Add Unsafe<T> #12577
- [x] Forbid taking the address of a immutable static item with `Unsafe<T>` interior
What's left to do in a separate PR (after the snapshot)?
===========================================
- Remove `Freeze` completely
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and
it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use
reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to
libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information,
this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of
{:?}.
In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered:
* It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this
because we can define Show for [T].
* A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)]
* Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)`
* `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths.
I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks
awful (it's a byte array).
Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime
significant for smaller binaries.
These two containers are indeed collections, so their place is in
libcollections, not in libstd. There will always be a hash map as part of the
standard distribution of Rust, but by moving it out of the standard library it
makes libstd that much more portable to more platforms and environments.
This conveniently also removes the stuttering of 'std::hashmap::HashMap',
although 'collections::HashMap' is only one character shorter.
This patch merges IterBytes and Hash traits, which clears up the
confusion of using `#[deriving(IterBytes)]` to support hashing.
Instead, it now is much easier to use the new `#[deriving(Hash)]`
for making a type hashable with a stream hash.
Furthermore, it supports custom non-stream-based hashers, such as
if a value's hash was cached in a database.
This does not yet replace the old IterBytes-hash with this new
version.
Now that fold_item can return multiple items, this is pretty trivial. It
also recursively expands generated items so ItemDecorators can generate
items that are tagged with ItemDecorators!
Closes#4913
Error messages cleaned in librustc/middle
Error messages cleaned in libsyntax
Error messages cleaned in libsyntax more agressively
Error messages cleaned in librustc more aggressively
Fixed affected tests
Fixed other failing tests
Last failing tests fixed
### Rationale
There is no reason to support more than 2³² nodes or names at this moment, as compiling something that big (even without considering the quadratic space usage of some analysis passes) would take at least **64GB**.
Meanwhile, some can't (or barely can) compile rustc because it requires almost **1.5GB**.
### Potential problems
Can someone confirm this doesn't affect metadata (de)serialization? I can't tell myself, I know nothing about it.
### Results
Some structures have a size reduction of 25% to 50%: [before](https://gist.github.com/luqmana/3a82a51fa9c86d9191fa) - [after](https://gist.github.com/eddyb/5a75f8973d3d8018afd3).
Sadly, there isn't a massive change in the memory used for compiling stage2 librustc (it doesn't go over **1.4GB** as [before](http://huonw.github.io/isrustfastyet/mem/), but I can barely see the difference).
However, my own testcase (previously peaking at **1.6GB** in typeck) shows a reduction of **200**-**400MB**.
