This fixes leakage on panic with arrays & slices. I am using a C-style
for-loop instead of a pointer-based loop because that would be ugly-er
to implement.
Remove unused APIs from rustc_trans
There were public re-exports of some rustc modules dating back to 2011 or so. While I was at it, some functions and modules were public but never used outside the crate. I made them private or `pub(crate)` as appropriate and in one case removed an unused function.
Docs: impls of PartialEq/PartialOrd/Ord must agree
Fixes#41270.
This PR brings two improvements to the docs:
1. Docs for `PartialEq`, `PartialOrd`, and `Ord` clarify that their implementations must agree.
2. Fixes a subtle bug in the Dijkstra example for `BinaryHeap`, where the impls are inconsistent.
Thanks @Rufflewind for spotting the bug!
r? @alexcrichton
cc @frankmcsherry
extend `struct_tail` to operate over tuples
Not 100% sure why this got exposed when it wasn't before, but this struct definitely seems wrong.
Fixes#42110
r? @eddyb
Update to Rc and Arc documentation to favor the Rc::clone(&ptr) syntax.
This is a followup of the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1954.
The solution chosen by the core team to address the problem tackled by the [the RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1954) was to make the function call syntax Rc::clone(&foo) the idiomatic way to clone a reference counted pointer (over the method call syntax foo.clone()).
This change updates the documentation of Rc, Arc and their respective Weak pointers to reflect this decision and bring more exposure to the existence of the function call syntax.
Mark various items and fields as private or pub(crate), and remove a function that turns out to be unused.
These are not used anywhere in-tree, but I guess it's a [breaking-change] for plugins.
trace_macro: Show both the macro call and its expansion. #42072.
See #42072 for the initial motivation behind this.
The change is not the minimal fix, but I want this behavior almost every time I use `trace_macros`.
rustbuild: don't create a source tarball when installing
This splits Install out of Dist as it is not a full dist anymore, and creates the source tarball only for the Dist command.
This will allow splitting install in a few rules if we want as it's done for other phases.
Use the improved submodule handling
r? @alexcrichton
That was a crap...
```
Updating submodules
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./x.py", line 20, in <module>
bootstrap.main()
File "/home/ishitatsuyuki/Documents/rust/src/bootstrap/bootstrap.py", line 684, in main
bootstrap()
File "/home/ishitatsuyuki/Documents/rust/src/bootstrap/bootstrap.py", line 662, in bootstrap
rb.update_submodules()
File "/home/ishitatsuyuki/Documents/rust/src/bootstrap/bootstrap.py", line 566, in update_submodules
path = line[1:].split(' ')[1]
TypeError: a bytes-like object is required, not 'str'
```
Maybe we need to confirm the compatibility of git options, such as `git config` or `git -C` (I believe they existed long before, though). This is tested locally.
Fix 'associate type' typo
I came across an error message mentioning an 'associate type'.
Since this is the only instance of this term in rustc (it's 'associated type' everywhere else), I think this might be a typo.
Make assignments to `Copy` union fields safe
This is an accompanying PR to PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/42068 stabilizing FFI unions.
This was first proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32836#issuecomment-281296416, see subsequent comments as well.
Assignments to `Copy` union fields do not read any data from the union and are [equivalent](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32836#issuecomment-281660298) to whole union assignments, which are safe, so they should be safe as well. This removes a significant number of "false positive" unsafe blocks, in code dealing with FFI unions in particular.
It desirable to make this change now, together with stabilization of FFI unions, because now it affecfts only unstable code, but later it will cause warnings/errors caused by `unused_unsafe` lint in stable code.
cc #32836
r? @nikomatsakis
add thiscall calling convention support
This support is needed for bindgen to work well on 32-bit Windows, and also enables people to begin experimenting with C++ FFI support on that platform.
Fixes#42044.
Initial implementation of declarative macros 2.0
Implement declarative macros 2.0 (rust-lang/rfcs#1584) behind `#![feature(decl_macro)]`.
Differences from `macro_rules!` include:
- new syntax: `macro m(..) { .. }` instead of `macro_rules! m { (..) => { .. } }`
- declarative macros are items:
```rust
// crate A:
pub mod foo {
m!(); // use before definition; declaration order is irrelevant
pub macro m() {} // `pub`, `pub(super)`, etc. work
}
fn main() {
foo::m!(); // named like other items
{ use foo::m as n; n!(); } // imported like other items
}
pub use foo::m; // re-exported like other items
// crate B:
extern crate A; // no need for `#[macro_use]`
A::foo::m!(); A::m!();
```
- Racket-like hygiene for items, imports, methods, fields, type parameters, privacy, etc.
- Intuitively, names in a macro definition are resolved in the macro definition's scope, not the scope in which the macro is used.
- This [explaination](http://beautifulracket.com/explainer/hygiene.html) of hygiene for Racket applies here (except for the "Breaking Hygiene" section). I wrote a similar [explanation](https://github.com/jseyfried/rfcs/blob/hygiene/text/0000-hygiene.md) for Rust.
- Generally speaking, if `fn f() { <body> }` resolves, `pub macro m() { <body> } ... m!()` also resolves, even if `m!()` is in a separate crate.
- `::foo::bar` in a `macro` behaves like `$crate::foo::bar` in a `macro_rules!`, except it can access everything visible from the `macro` (thus more permissive).
- See [`src/test/{run-pass, compile-fail}/hygiene`](afe7d89858) for examples. Small example:
```rust
mod foo {
fn f() { println!("hello world"); }
pub macro m() { f(); }
}
fn main() { foo::m!(); }
```
Limitations:
- This does not address planned changes to matchers (`expr`,`ty`, etc.), c.f. #26361.
- Lints (including stability and deprecation) and `unsafe` are not hygienic.
- adding hygiene here will be mostly or entirely backwards compatible
- Nested macro definitions (a `macro` inside another `macro`) don't always work correctly when invoked from external crates.
- pending improvements in how we encode macro definitions in crate metadata
- There is no way to "escape" hygiene without using a procedural macro.
r? @nrc
