common supertypes.
This was breaking with the change to regions because of the
(now incorrect) assumpton that our inference code makes,
which is that if a <: b succeeds, there is no need to compute
the LUB/GLB.
This patch makes error handling for region inference failures more
uniform by not reporting *any* region errors until the reigon inference
step. This requires threading through more information about what
caused a region constraint, so that we can still give informative
error messages.
I have only taken partial advantage of this information: when region
inference fails, we still report the same error we always did, despite
the fact that we now know precisely what caused the various constriants
and what the region variable represents, which we did not know before.
This change is required not only to improve error messages but
because the region hierarchy is not in fact fully known until regionck,
because it is not clear where closure bodies fit in (our current
treatment is unsound). Moreover, the relationships between free variables
cannot be fully determined until type inference is otherwise complete.
cc #3238.
@catamorphism, this re-enables threadsafe rustpkg tests, @brson this will fail unless the bots have LLVM rebuilt, so this is a good indicator of whether that happened or not.
fix clean-llvm in mk/clean.mk for cross-compile
after #7442 landed, below error produced while android cross-compile
```
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `clean-llvmarm-linux-androideabi', needed by `clean-llvm'. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/yichoi/rust_latest/build'
make: *** [rustllvm/llvm-auto-clean-stamp] Error 2
```
Continuation of #7430.
I haven't removed the `map` method, since the replacement `v.iter().transform(f).collect::<~[SomeType]>()` is a little ridiculous at the moment.
With these changes, exchange allocator headers are never initialized, read or written to. Removing the header will now just involve updating the code in trans using an offset to only do it if the type contained is managed.
The only thing blocking removing the initialization of the last field in the header was ~fn since it uses it to store the dynamic size/types due to captures. I temporarily switched it to a `closure_exchange_alloc` lang item (it uses the same `exchange_free`) and #7496 is filed about removing that.
Since the `exchange_free` call is now inlined all over the codebase, I don't think we should have an assert for null. It doesn't currently ever happen, but it would be fine if we started generating code that did do it. The `exchange_free` function also had a comment declaring that it must not fail, but a regular assert would cause a failure. I also removed the atomic counter because valgrind can already find these leaks, and we have valgrind bots now.
Note that exchange free does not currently print an error an out-of-memory when it aborts, because our `io` code may allocate. We could probably get away with a `#[rust_stack]` call to a `stdio` function but it would be better to make a write system call.
This stems from trying to perform as few allocations as possible throughout the standard libraries.
This specializes the `ToStr` implementation for floats/ints separately because it's known that ints will have a maximum length (whereas floats could be very very large).
I also removed a `FIXME` to remove a malloc from the `to_str()` of floats in `repr.rs` because I think that this should be addressed elsewhere. I think that we may not be able to avoid it easily because floats can have such large representations, but regardless this should be a problem with the implementation of `float_to_str_bytes_common` now and not in the `Repr` module.
* stop using an atomic counter, this has a significant cost and
valgrind will already catch these leaks
* remove the extra layer of function calls
* remove the assert of non-null in free, freeing null is well defined
but throwing a failure from free will not be
* stop initializing the `prev`/`next` pointers
* abort on out-of-memory, failing won't necessarily work
I almost got locked out of my machine because I misunderstood the purpose of the function and called it with a limit of uint::max_value, which turned this function into an almost endless loop.
