Using "later" in this context makes more sense than "greater" so it's been changed to match the Linux requirement above it rather than the other way around.
- Headlines begin at 1st level now like the rest of the book
- All Headlines a blank line above and below
- Fix links in this chapter's TOC
r? @steveklabnik
This commit does some refactoring to make almost all of the `std::rt` private.
Specifically, the following items are no longer part of its API:
* DEFAULT_ERROR_CODE
* backtrace
* unwind
* args
* at_exit
* cleanup
* heap (this is just alloc::heap)
* min_stack
* util
The module is now tagged as `#[doc(hidden)]` as the only purpose it's serve is
an entry point for the `panic!` macro via the `begin_unwind` and
`begin_unwind_fmt` reexports.
This commit does some refactoring to make almost all of the `std::rt` private.
Specifically, the following items are no longer part of its API:
* DEFAULT_ERROR_CODE
* backtrace
* unwind
* args
* at_exit
* cleanup
* heap (this is just alloc::heap)
* min_stack
* util
The module is now tagged as `#[doc(hidden)]` as the only purpose it's serve is
an entry point for the `panic!` macro via the `begin_unwind` and
`begin_unwind_fmt` reexports.
r? @steveklabnik
The phrase 'academic research' rubs me the wrong way. I have some concern about the role of this page and think it could be expanded to more than just academic papers and cleaned up a lot.
I took a stab at fixing #28064. Not sure if this all-features-in-one-example approach is the right one. Also I completely made up the terms "star globbing" and "brace expansion globbing" -- they are just called "glob-like syntax" in the reference.
I took a stab at fixing #28064. Not sure if this all-features-in-one-example approach is the right one. Also I completely made up the terms "star globbing" and "brace expansion globbing" -- they are just called "glob-like syntax" in the reference.
As I understand, there are no proc closures in Rust any more. So this pr removes `procedure_type` production. It isn't used anywhere. The `proc` is still a keyword.
r? @steveklabnik
@bors: r+ rollup
I have two issues with the section "Deref and method calls" of the book's chapter "Deref coercions".
- (Minor) It says "In other words, these are the same two things in Rust:", followed by a code block in which no two things seem similar, much less the same. Presumably this sentence made more sense in a previous revision.
- The next paragraph conflates two concepts which, imho, should kept separate. They are
- deref coercion, i.e. inserting as many `*` as necessary and
- implicitly referencing the receiver, i.e. inserting a single `&` to satisfy the method's `self` parameter type.
I appreciate that with the proposed changes the example becomes very contrived, even for a foo-bar-baz one. However, the current exmplanation is just wrong.
This adds missing `?` marks to productions for loops and break/continue.
It also adds missing option label to while let loop.
Note that '[' foo ']' means grouping in BNF, and '?' is used for possible missing items.
r? @steveklabnik
Originally in an example it reads as follows:
```rust
fn inverse<T>() -> T
// this is using ConvertTo as if it were "ConvertFrom<i32>"
where i32: ConvertTo<T> {
42.convert()
}
```
There was no mention of `ConvertFrom` elsewhere in the page other than in this comment. Is this supposed to be `ConvertTo<i64>` ?
I'm confused by this example.
It came up twice in quick succession on IRC that rustdoc doesn't run tests in bin crates, and doesn't give any explanation/warning either as to why. I thought it couldn't hurt to emphasize that in the Book.
The chapter on concurrency has two examples that both start with:
let something = thread::spawn(…
but the returned values have different types, because the second example has `.join()` at the end of the expression.
I haven't noticed that join at first, and was wondering how is that possible that the result can have `.is_err()` and `.join()` methods.
I've changed the second example to have the same structure as the first, so they're easy to compare.
Per @steveklabnik's comment [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/739#issuecomment-130085860), the Pandoc components of the Makefile are no longer used, and as such the corresponding components of the documentation are out of date.
- I've removed the Pandoc (and therefore also LaTeX) elements of the makefile and confirmed that the build proceeds correctly.
- I updated the documentation to reference `rustdoc` and of Pandoc.
r? @steveklabnik
The previous wording was confusing. While would we need to go through
the whole list just to find the first code point? `chars()` being an
iterator, we only need to walk from the beginning of the list.
Note that I am not a native English speaker and I have still difficulties to spot if a "the" is needed somewhere. Feel free to take this PR as a mere suggestion.
r? @steveklabnik
To correctly reexport statically included libraries from a DLL on Windows, the
compiler will soon need to have knowledge about what symbols are statically
included and which are not. To solve this problem a new unstable
`#[linked_from]` attribute is being added and recognized on `extern` blocks to
indicate which native library the symbols are coming from.
The compiler then keeps track of what the set of FFI symbols are that are
included statically. This information will be used in a future commit to
configure how we invoke the linker on Windows.
This commit removes all morestack support from the compiler which entails:
* Segmented stacks are no longer emitted in codegen.
* We no longer build or distribute libmorestack.a
* The `stack_exhausted` lang item is no longer required
The only current use of the segmented stack support in LLVM is to detect stack
overflow. This is no longer really required, however, because we already have
guard pages for all threads and registered signal handlers watching for a
segfault on those pages (to print out a stack overflow message). Additionally,
major platforms (aka Windows) already don't use morestack.
This means that Rust is by default less likely to catch stack overflows because
if a function takes up more than one page of stack space it won't hit the guard
page. This is what the purpose of morestack was (to catch this case), but it's
better served with stack probes which have more cross platform support and no
runtime support necessary. Until LLVM supports this for all platform it looks
like morestack isn't really buying us much.
cc #16012 (still need stack probes)
Closes#26458 (a drive-by fix to help diagnostics on stack overflow)
r? @brson
This commit removes all morestack support from the compiler which entails:
* Segmented stacks are no longer emitted in codegen.
* We no longer build or distribute libmorestack.a
* The `stack_exhausted` lang item is no longer required
The only current use of the segmented stack support in LLVM is to detect stack
overflow. This is no longer really required, however, because we already have
guard pages for all threads and registered signal handlers watching for a
segfault on those pages (to print out a stack overflow message). Additionally,
major platforms (aka Windows) already don't use morestack.
This means that Rust is by default less likely to catch stack overflows because
if a function takes up more than one page of stack space it won't hit the guard
page. This is what the purpose of morestack was (to catch this case), but it's
better served with stack probes which have more cross platform support and no
runtime support necessary. Until LLVM supports this for all platform it looks
like morestack isn't really buying us much.
cc #16012 (still need stack probes)
Closes#26458 (a drive-by fix to help diagnostics on stack overflow)
The previous wording was confusing. While would we need to go through
the whole list just to find the first code point? `chars()` being an
iterator, we only need to walk from the beginning of the list.
Keeping integer values and integer references in the "value" columns made the examples quite difficult for me to follow. I've added unicode arrows to make references more obvious, without using a character with actual meaning in the rust language (like `&` or previously `~`).
