The `print!` and `println!` macros are now the preferred method of printing, and so there is no reason to export the `stdio` functions in the prelude. The functions have also been replaced by their macro counterparts in the tutorial and other documentation so that newcomers don't get confused about what they should be using.
The `print!` and `println!` macros are now the preferred method of printing, and so there is no reason to export the `stdio` functions in the prelude. The functions have also been replaced by their macro counterparts in the tutorial and other documentation so that newcomers don't get confused about what they should be using.
So far the following code
```
struct Foo;
fn main() {
let mut t = Foo;
let ref b = Foo;
a += *b;
}
```
errors with
```
test.rs:15:3: 13:11 error: binary operation + cannot be applied to type `Foo`
test.rs:15 *a += *b;
```
Since assignment-operators are no longer expanded to ```left = left OP right``` but are independents operators it should be
```
test.rs:15:3: 13:11 error: binary operation += cannot be applied to type `Foo`
test.rs:15 *a += *b;
```
to make it clear that implementing Add for Foo is not gonna work. (cf issues #11143, #11344)
Besides that, we also need to typecheck the rhs expression even if the operator has no implementation, or we end up with unknown types for the nodes of the rhs and an ICE later on while resolving types. (once again cf #11143 and #11344).
This probably would get fixed with #5992, but in the meantime it's a confusing error to stumble upon.
@pcwalton, you wrote the original code, what do you think?
(closes#11143 and #11344)
That is, if you have an enum type that is subject to the nullable
pointer optimization, but the null variant has a nonzero number of
fields, and you declare a static whose value is of that variant, then
that used to be an ICE but this change fixes it.
That is, if you have an enum type that is subject to the nullable
pointer optimization, but the null variant has a nonzero number of
fields, and you declare a static whose value is of that variant, then
that used to be an ICE but this change fixes it.
This is just an unnecessary trait that no one's ever going to parameterize over
and it's more useful to just define the methods directly on the types
themselves. The implementors of this type almost always don't want
inner_mut_ref() but they're forced to define it as well.
So, like I mentioned in issue #10955 it doesn't seem like we need to call ```ty::subst_tps``` when the method is generic. But then I realized that this function doesn't mutate any of its input, and the return value is unused. Plus the type param substitution seems to be taken care of in ```trans_fn_ref_with_vtables```, so I thought I'd just try to remove it. As far as I can tell everything works.
This closes#10955.
This is just an unnecessary trait that no one's ever going to parameterize over
and it's more useful to just define the methods directly on the types
themselves. The implementors of this type almost always don't want
inner_mut_ref() but they're forced to define it as well.
If a reexport comes from a non-public module, then the documentation for the
reexport will be inlined into the module that exports it, but if the reexport is
targeted at a public type (like the prelude), then it is not inlined but rather
hyperlinked.
If a reexport comes from a non-public module, then the documentation for the
reexport will be inlined into the module that exports it, but if the reexport is
targeted at a public type (like the prelude), then it is not inlined but rather
hyperlinked.
This pull request fixes#11083. The problem was that recursive type definitions were not properly handled for enum types, leading to problems with LLVM's metadata "uniquing". This bug has already been fixed for struct types some time ago (#9658) but I seem to have forgotten about enums back then. I added the offending code from issue #11083 as a test case.
The resulting symbol names aren't very pretty at all:
trait Trait { fn method(&self); }
impl<'a> Trait for ~[(&'a int, fn())] { fn method(&self) {} }
gives
Trait$$UP$$VEC$$TUP_2$$BP$int$$FN$$::method::...hash...::v0.0
However, at least it contain some reference to the Self type, unlike
`Trait$__extensions__::method:...`, which is what the symbol name used
to be for anything other than `impl Trait for foo::bar::Baz` (which
became, and still becomes, `Trait$Baz::method`).
The resulting symbol names aren't very pretty at all:
trait Trait { fn method(&self); }
impl<'a> Trait for ~[(&'a int, fn())] { fn method(&self) {} }
gives
Trait$$UP$$VEC$$TUP_2$$BP$int$$FN$$::method::...hash...::v0.0
However, at least it contain some reference to the Self type, unlike
`Trait$__extensions__::method:...`, which is what the symbol name used
to be for anything other than `impl Trait for foo::bar::Baz` (which
became, and still becomes, `Trait$Baz::method`).
Right now if you have concurrent builds of two libraries in the same directory
(such as rustc's bootstrapping process), it's possible that two libraries will
stomp over each others' metadata, producing corrupt rlibs.
By placing the metadata file in a tempdir we're guranteed to not conflict with
ay other builds happening concurrently. Normally this isn't a problem because
output filenames are scoped to the name of the crate, but metadata is special in
that it has the same name across all crates.
This PR adds `std::unsafe::intrinsics::{volatile_load,volatile_store}`, which map to LLVM's `load volatile` and `store volatile` operations correspondingly.
This would fix#11172.
I have addressed several uncertainties with this PR in the line comments.
The comments have more information as to why this is done, but the basic idea is
that finding an exported trait is actually a fairly difficult problem. The true
answer lies in whether a trait is ever referenced from another exported method,
and right now this kind of analysis doesn't exist, so the conservative answer of
"yes" is always returned to answer whether a trait is exported.
Closes#11224Closes#11225
