I'll flip this on after doing a snapshot. This syntax may or may not
stay around, and managed boxes are currently not very useful. They have
the same overall performance characteristics as `std::rc::Rc`, but are
significantly slower, allocate larger boxes and hold onto the memory
beyond when it is needed due to lacking move semantics.
There are currently two useful aspects of the type:
* the dereference sugar, which we should implement for `Rc`
* the annihilator freeing cycles at the end of the task
I'll flip this on after doing a snapshot. This syntax may or may not
stay around, and managed boxes are currently not very useful. They have
the same overall performance characteristics as `std::rc::Rc`, but are
significantly slower, allocate larger boxes and hold onto the memory
beyond when it is needed due to lacking move semantics.
There are currently two useful aspects of the type:
* the dereference sugar, which we should implement for `Rc`
* the annihilator freeing cycles at the end of the task
Drop the `2` suffix on all of them, updating all code in the process of doing so. This is a completely automated change, and it's dependent on the snapshots going through.
It seems like rusti has been removed, except for one reference in one Makefile. This reference breaks building rust on my computer because the "all-target" rule has rusti as a target.
~~~~
make: *** No rule to make target `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rusti', needed by `all-target-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'. Stop.
~~~~
Removing this line fixes things for me.
This patch is trivial, but it comes with a question. Does Mozilla need to own the copyright on code submitted to Rust?
The reason I ask is that, since the last time I submitted anything to a Mozilla project, I started working at Google, and they (by default) own the copyright on code that I write (even in my spare time). There's a process to assign copyright to another entity, and it should be a formality for something like this, but I'd still have to go through it if that's a requirement for Rust.
Anyway, I'm submitting this incredibly trivial thing because, if I have to go through that process for the first time, I'd like it to be for something that's trivial, so I can see how much of a hassle it is (if any) without having invested much time up front.
I didn't see anything about copyright in the Mozilla contributor's agreement, but I could have easily missed something somewhere else.
This should close#9468.
I removed the test stating that nested comments should not be implemented.
I had a little chicken-and-egg problem because a comment of the std contains "/*", and adding support for nested comment creates a backward incompatibility in that case, so I had to use a dirty hack to get stage1 and stage2 to compile. This part should be revert when this commit lands in a snapshot.
This is my first non-typo contribution, so I'm open to any comment.
This does not work for cross-crate implementations of traits. Cross-crate
implementations are a separate issue that should be addressed separately.
Basically when an implementation of an external trait is detected, the trait
would have to be loaded at that time (or possibly sooner...). Rustdoc currently
doesn't have the proper infrastructure for adding this.
Closes#9985
cc #9999
When re-exporting a trait/structure/enum, then we need to propagate the
reachability of the type through the methods that are defined on it.
Closes#9906Closes#9968
Fixes#9882
Note that the actual checking code is inside a if false in order to compile libstd properly.
libstd uses asm! in rt. If we put ```#[feature(asm)]``` in libstd, it fails to build at stage0 beacause the
asm feature is not known yet by the snapshot compiler.
We must wait that this PR arrives into the snapshot in order to actually activate the checking code.
