`Times::times` was always a second-class loop because it did not support the `break` and `continue` operations. Its playful appeal was then lost after `do` was disabled for closures. It's time to let this one go.
This commit alters the build process of the compiler to build a static
librustrt.a instead of a dynamic version. This means that we can stop
distributing librustrt as well as default linking against it in the compiler.
This also means that if you attempt to build rust code without libstd, it will
no longer work if there are any landing pads in play. The reason for this is
that LLVM and rustc will emit calls to the various upcalls in librustrt used to
manage exception handling. In theory we could split librustrt into librustrt and
librustupcall. We would then distribute librustupcall and link to it for all
programs using landing pads, but I would rather see just one librustrt artifact
and simplify the build process.
The major benefit of doing this is that building a static rust library for use
in embedded situations all of a sudden just became a whole lot more feasible.
Closes#3361
These two attributes are no longer useful now that Rust has decided to leave
segmented stacks behind. It is assumed that the rust task's stack is always
large enough to make an FFI call (due to the stack being very large).
There's always the case of stack overflow, however, to consider. This does not
change the behavior of stack overflow in Rust. This is still normally triggered
by the __morestack function and aborts the whole process.
C stack overflow will continue to corrupt the stack, however (as it did before
this commit as well). The future improvement of a guard page at the end of every
rust stack is still unimplemented and is intended to be the mechanism through
which we attempt to detect C stack overflow.
Closes#8822Closes#10155
Change the former repetition::
for 5.times { }
to::
do 5.times { }
.times() cannot be broken with `break` or `return` anymore; for those
cases, use a numerical range loop instead.
I don't have a strong opinion on the function vs. method, but there's no point in having both. I'd like to make a `repeat` adaptor like Python/Haskell for turning a value into an infinite stream of the value, so this has to at least be renamed.
