Some history:
While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.
At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.
Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:
// Philosophers
There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.
The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.
People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.
// Rust Inside Other Languages
This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.
By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.
In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.
I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.
Fixes#30471Fixes#30163Fixes#30162Fixes#25488Fixes#30345Fixes#29590Fixes#28713Fixes#28915
And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.
RIP.
Make `".".parse::<f32>()` and `".".parse::<f64>()` return Err
This fixes#30344.
This is a [breaking-change], which the libs team have classified as a
bug fix.
So far `librustc::trans::base::trans_fn()` and `trans_closure()` have been passed the list of attributes on the function being translated *only* if the function was local and non-generic. For generic functions, functions inlined from other crates, functions with foreign ABI and for closures, only an empty list of attributes was ever passed to `trans_fn()`.
This led to the case that generic functions marked with `#[rustc_mir]` where not actually translated via MIR but via the legacy translation path.
This PR makes function/closure attributes always be passed to `trans_fn()` and disables the one test where this makes a difference.
If there is an actual reason why attributes were not passed along in these cases, let me know.
cc @rust-lang/compiler
cc @luqmana regarding the test case
Add OpAssign to Wrapping<T>, plus fix some problems in core::num::wrapping
including, but not limited to:
* Testing Wrapping<T>
* Pull out a lot of broken code that doesn't need to be there with the new stage0 compiler
* Adding Rem and RemAssign to Wrapping<T>
* Removed 3 (assumed accidental) re-exports, which is a minor [breaking-change].
* Change shl and shr to take all integer types, instead of a usize; this is a more major [breaking-change], because of values that were inferred before, but brings us in line with the integer shifts.
Fixes#30524 and #30523
This makes both of the following return Err:
".".parse::<f32>()
".".parse::<f64>()
This is a [breaking-change], which the libs team have classified as a
bug fix.
As mentioned in #29734, the range comparison closure can be improved.
The LLVM IR and the assembly from the new version are much simpler and
unfortunately we cannot rely on the compiler to optimise this much, as
it would need to know that `lo <= hi`.
Besides from simpler code, there might also be a performance
advantage, although it is unlikely to appear on benchmarks, as we are
doing a binary search, which should always involve few comparisons.
The code is available on the playpen for ease of comparison:
http://is.gd/4raMmH
`fs::File` was being referenced without either calling via `std::fs::File` or by using `File` after having used `std::fs::File`. Also `Path` was being referenced without first having used `std::path::Path`.
fs::File was being referenced without either calling via std::fs::File or by using File after having used fs::File. Also Path was being referenced without first having used std::path::Path.
This is not a fix to checks themselves per se (though we still use `Eq` MIR test instead of calling `PartialEq::eq`), but rather how we handle items we encounter in pattern position.
Previously we would just call `PartialEq` with the constant and the matchee, but now we essentially inline the constant instead. E.g. these two snippets are functionally equivalent at MIR level:
```
match val { Some(42) => true, _ => false }
```
and
```
const SECRET: Option<u8> = Some(42);
match val { SECRET => true, _ => false }
```
This approach also allows for more optimizations of matches. I.e. It can now exploit `SwitchInt` to switch on number inside a `Some` regardless of whether the value being an item or not.
This is based on @tsion’s already approved PR so I could reuse the file for more tests.
r? @eddyb
cc @nikomatsakis @tsion
These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to
complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just
isn't worth our time.
Obviously we can't remove the character one past the end of the String. And we can't today either - we'll just panic at char_at() instead - but if we're going to keep that assertion, we should at least have a correct assertion.
