Fixes that unit-like structs cannot be used if they are reexported and
used in another crate. The compiler fails with an ICE, because unit-like
structs are exported as DefFn and the expression `UnitStruct` is
interpreted as function pointer instead of a call to the constructor.
To resolve this ambiguity tuple-like struct constructors are now exported
as CtorFn. When `rustc::metadata::decoder` finds a CtorFn it sets a new
flag `is_ctor` in DefFn to true.
Relevant changes are in `rustc::metadata::{encoder, decoder}` and in
`rustc::middle::ty`.
Closes#12660 and #16973.
This new pass is run before type checking so that recursive items
are detected beforehand. This prevents going into an infinite
recursion during type checking when a recursive item is used in
an array type.
As a bonus, use `span_err` instead of `span_fatal` so multiple
errors can be reported.
Closes issue #17252
This allows code to access the fields of tuples and tuple structs:
let x = (1i, 2i);
assert_eq!(x.1, 2);
struct Point(int, int);
let origin = Point(0, 0);
assert_eq!(origin.0, 0);
assert_eq!(origin.1, 0);
[breaking-change]
1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code.
2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible.
3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.
This PR enables the use of mutable slices in *mutable* static items. The work was started by @xales and I added a follow-up commit that moves the *immutable* restriction to the recently added `check_static`
Closes#11411
This patch replaces all `crate` usage with `krate` before introducing the
new keyword. This ensures that after introducing the keyword, there
won't be any compilation errors.
krate might not be the most expressive substitution for crate but it's a
very close abbreviation for it. `module` was already used in several
places already.
The included test case would essentially never finish compiling without this
patch. It recursies twice at every ExprParen meaning that the branching factor
is 2^n
The included test case will take so long to parse on the old compiler that it'll
surely never let this crop up again.
The included test case would essentially never finish compiling without this
patch. It recursies twice at every ExprParen meaning that the branching factor
is 2^n
The included test case will take so long to parse on the old compiler that it'll
surely never let this crop up again.
NodeIds are sequential integers starting at zero, so we can achieve some
memory savings by just storing the items all in a line in a vector.
The occupancy for typical crates seems to be 75-80%, so we're already
more efficient than a HashMap (maximum occupancy 75%), not even counting
the extra book-keeping that HashMap does.
