Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Felix S. Klock II
f9a1087f27 Feature-gate the #[unsafe_no_drop_flag] attribute.
See RFC 320, "Non-zeroing dynamic drops."

Fix #22173

[breaking-change]
2015-02-11 13:57:40 +01:00
Steve Klabnik
7828c3dd28 Rename fail! to panic!
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221

The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.

Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.

We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.

To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:

    grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'

You can of course also do this by hand.

[breaking-change]
2014-10-29 11:43:07 -04:00
Kevin Ballard
2ffcbf11f5 Rewrite the issue-10734 rpass file
Stop relying on a malloc error to indicate failure and instead use an
explicit check. Also ensure that the value is dropped at the correct
time (e.g. that the if statement is translated into `{ expr }` instead
of `expr`).
2013-11-30 23:55:55 -08:00
Alex Crichton
7bb166ef4f Don't run cleanups twice in "if true" blocks
Turns out `with_scope` already translates destructors, so by manually
translating destructors we end up running them all twice (bad).

Closes #10734
2013-11-30 00:30:28 -08:00