I believe this patch incorporates all expected syntax changes from extern
function reform (#3678). You can now write things like:
extern "<abi>" fn foo(s: S) -> T { ... }
extern "<abi>" mod { ... }
extern "<abi>" fn(S) -> T
The ABI for foreign functions is taken from this syntax (rather than from an
annotation). We support the full ABI specification I described on the mailing
list. The correct ABI is chosen based on the target architecture.
Calls by pointer to C functions are not yet supported, and the Rust type of
crust fns is still *u8.
Before it wouldn't warn about unused imports in the list if something in the list was used. These commits fix that case, add a test, and remove all unused imports in lists of imports throughout the compiler.
Before, if anything in a list was used, the entire list was considered to be
used. This corrects this and also warns on a span of the actual unused import
instead of the entire list.
Impose a limit so that the typo suggester only shows reasonable
suggestions (i.e. don't suggest `args` when the error is `foobar`).
A tiny bit of progress on #2281.
r? @nikomatsakis The typechecker previously passed around a boolean return flag to
indicate whether it saw something with type _|_ (that is, something
it knows at compile-time will definitely diverge) and also had some
manual checks for the `ty_err` pseudo-type that represents a previous
type error. This was because the typing rules implemented by the
typechecker didn't properly propagate _|_ and ty_err. I fixed it.
This also required changing expected error messages in a few tests,
as now we're printing out fewer derived errors -- in fact, at this
point we should print out no derived errors, so report any that
you see (ones that include "[type error]") as bugs.
The typechecker previously passed around a boolean return flag to
indicate whether it saw something with type _|_ (that is, something
it knows at compile-time will definitely diverge) and also had some
manual checks for the `ty_err` pseudo-type that represents a previous
type error. This was because the typing rules implemented by the
typechecker didn't properly propagate _|_ and ty_err. I fixed it.
This also required changing expected error messages in a few tests,
as now we're printing out fewer derived errors -- in fact, at this
point we should print out no derived errors, so report any that
you see (ones that include "[type error]") as bugs.
For bootstrapping purposes, this commit does not remove all uses of
the keyword "pure" -- doing so would cause the compiler to no longer
bootstrap due to some syntax extensions ("deriving" in particular).
Instead, it makes the compiler ignore "pure". Post-snapshot, we can
remove "pure" from the language.
There are quite a few (~100) borrow check errors that were essentially
all the result of mutable fields or partial borrows of `@mut`. Per
discussions with Niko I think we want to allow partial borrows of
`@mut` but detect obvious footguns. We should also improve the error
message when `@mut` is erroneously reborrowed.
r? @graydon
This removes `log` from the language. Because we can't quite implement it as a syntax extension (probably need globals at the least) it simply renames the keyword to `__log` and hides it behind macros.
After this the only way to log is with `debug!`, `info!`, etc. I figure that if there is demand for `log!` we can add it back later.
I am not sure that we ever agreed on this course of action, though I *think* there is consensus that `log` shouldn't be a statement.
Macro invocations with path separators (e.g. foo::bar!()) now produce a sensible error message, rather than an assertion failure. Also added compile-fail test case.
Fixes#5218 ?
The fix is straight-forward, but there are several changes
while fixing the issue.
1) disallow `mut` keyword when making a new struct
In code base, there are following code,
```rust
struct Foo { mut a: int };
let a = Foo { mut a: 1 };
```
This is because of structural record, which is
deprecated corrently (see issue #3089) In structural
record, `mut` keyword should be allowd to control
mutability. But without structural record, we don't
need to allow `mut` keyword while constructing struct.
2) disallow structural records in parser level
This is related to 1). With structural records, there
is an ambiguity between empty block and empty struct
To solve the problem, I change parser to stop parsing
structural records. I think this is not a problem,
because structural records are not compiled already.
Misc. issues
There is an ambiguity between empty struct vs. empty match stmt.
with following code,
```rust
match x{} {}
```
Two interpretation is possible, which is listed blow
```rust
match (x{}) {} // matching with newly-constructed empty struct
(match x{}) {} // matching with empty enum(or struct) x
// and then empty block
```
It seems that there is no such code in rust code base, but
there is one test which uses empty match statement:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/incoming/src/test/run-pass/issue-3037.rs
All other cases could be distinguished with look-ahead,
but this can't be. One possible solution is wrapping with
parentheses when matching with an uninhabited type.
```rust
enum what { }
fn match_with_empty(x: what) -> ~str {
match (x) { //use parentheses to remove the ambiguity
}
}
```
This removes all but 6 uses of `drop {}` from the entire codebase. Removing any of the remaining uses causes various non-trivial bugs; I'll start reporting them once this gets merged.
