By returning the items to process and storing them in a queue, we were losing
the context that was setup for that item during the recursion. This is an easy
fix, rather than hoisting out the state that it needs.
Understand 'pkgid' in stage0. As a bonus, the snapshot now contains now metadata
(now that those changes have landed), and the snapshot download is half as large
as it used to be!
rustdoc:
- fix search-bar layout
doc: CSS:
- switch to native pandoc toc depth
- rm some dead code
- clamp width to be readable (we're not Wikipedia!)
- don't background-color titles, it's bloating
- make syntax-highlighting colors inline with rust-lang.org
- space indents
@alexcrichton
This replaces the link meta attributes with a pkgid attribute and uses a hash
of this as the crate hash. This makes the crate hash computable by things
other than the Rust compiler. It also switches the hash function ot SHA1 since
that is much more likely to be available in shell, Python, etc than SipHash.
Fixes#10188, #8523.
as recommended by @huonw on this PR https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/10711 , I removed intermediate step that generates a string instead of directly writing to Writer without generating intermediate string.
This reverts commit c54427ddfbbab41a39d14f2b1dc4f080cbc2d41b.
Leave the #[ignores] in that were added to rustpkg tests.
Conflicts:
src/librustc/driver/driver.rs
src/librustc/metadata/creader.rs
This registers new snapshots after the landing of #10528, and then goes on to tweak the build process to build a monolithic `rustc` binary for use in future snapshots. This mainly involved dropping the dynamic dependency on `librustllvm`, so that's now built as a static library (with a dynamically generated rust file listing LLVM dependencies).
This currently doesn't actually make the snapshot any smaller (24MB => 23MB), but I noticed that the executable has 11MB of metadata so once progress is made on #10740 we should have a much smaller snapshot.
There's not really a super-compelling reason to distribute just a binary because we have all the infrastructure for dealing with a directory structure, but to me it seems "more correct" that a snapshot compiler is just a `rustc` binary.
**Note**: I only tested on top of my #10670 PR, size reductions come from both change sets.
With this, [more enums are shrinked](https://gist.github.com/eddyb/08fef0dfc6ff54e890bc), the most significant one being `ast_node`, from 104 bytes (master) to 96 (#10670) and now to 32 bytes.
My own testcase requires **200MB** less when compiling (not including the other **200MB** gained in #10670), and rustc-stage2 is down by about **130MB**.
I believe there is more to gain by fiddling with the enums' layouts.
In this series of commits, I've implemented static linking for rust. The scheme I implemented was the same as my [mailing list post](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html).
The commits have more details to the nitty gritty of what went on. I've rebased this on top of my native mutex pull request (#10479), but I imagine that it will land before this lands, I just wanted to pre-emptively get all the rebase conflicts out of the way (becuase this is reorganizing building librustrt as well).
Some contentious points I want to make sure are all good:
* I've added more "compiler chooses a default" behavior than I would like, I want to make sure that this is all very clearly outlined in the code, and if not I would like to remove behavior or make it clearer.
* I want to make sure that the new "fancy suite" tests are ok (using make/python instead of another rust crate)
If we do indeed pursue this, I would be more than willing to write up a document describing how linking in rust works. I believe that this behavior should be very understandable, and the compiler should never hinder someone just because linking is a little fuzzy.
This commit implements the support necessary for generating both intermediate
and result static rust libraries. This is an implementation of my thoughts in
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html.
When compiling a library, we still retain the "lib" option, although now there
are "rlib", "staticlib", and "dylib" as options for crate_type (and these are
stackable). The idea of "lib" is to generate the "compiler default" instead of
having too choose (although all are interchangeable). For now I have left the
"complier default" to be a dynamic library for size reasons.
Of the rust libraries, lib{std,extra,rustuv} will bootstrap with an
rlib/dylib pair, but lib{rustc,syntax,rustdoc,rustpkg} will only be built as a
dynamic object. I chose this for size reasons, but also because you're probably
not going to be embedding the rustc compiler anywhere any time soon.
Other than the options outlined above, there are a few defaults/preferences that
are now opinionated in the compiler:
* If both a .dylib and .rlib are found for a rust library, the compiler will
prefer the .rlib variant. This is overridable via the -Z prefer-dynamic option
* If generating a "lib", the compiler will generate a dynamic library. This is
overridable by explicitly saying what flavor you'd like (rlib, staticlib,
dylib).
* If no options are passed to the command line, and no crate_type is found in
the destination crate, then an executable is generated
With this change, you can successfully build a rust program with 0 dynamic
dependencies on rust libraries. There is still a dynamic dependency on
librustrt, but I plan on removing that in a subsequent commit.
This change includes no tests just yet. Our current testing
infrastructure/harnesses aren't very amenable to doing flavorful things with
linking, so I'm planning on adding a new mode of testing which I believe belongs
as a separate commit.
Closes#552
The reasons for doing this are:
* The model on which linked failure is based is inherently complex
* The implementation is also very complex, and there are few remaining who
fully understand the implementation
* There are existing race conditions in the core context switching function of
the scheduler, and possibly others.
* It's unclear whether this model of linked failure maps well to a 1:1 threading
model
Linked failure is often a desired aspect of tasks, but we would like to take a
much more conservative approach in re-implementing linked failure if at all.
Closes#8674Closes#8318Closes#8863
The reasons for doing this are:
* The model on which linked failure is based is inherently complex
* The implementation is also very complex, and there are few remaining who
fully understand the implementation
* There are existing race conditions in the core context switching function of
the scheduler, and possibly others.
* It's unclear whether this model of linked failure maps well to a 1:1 threading
model
Linked failure is often a desired aspect of tasks, but we would like to take a
much more conservative approach in re-implementing linked failure if at all.
Closes#8674Closes#8318Closes#8863
Now the privacy pass returns enough information that other passes do not need to duplicate the visibility rules, and the missing_doc implementation is more consistent with other lint checks.
