us to construct trait-references and do other things without forcing a
full evaluation of the supertraits. One downside of this scheme is that
we must invoke `ensure_super_predicates` before using any construct that
might require knowing about the super-predicates.
This allows to create proper debuginfo line information for items inlined from other crates (e.g. instantiations of generics). Only the codemap's 'metadata' is stored in a crate's metadata. That is, just filename, positions of line-beginnings, etc. but not the actual source code itself.
Crate metadata size is increased by this change because spans in the encoded ASTs take up space now:
```
BEFORE AFTER
libcore 36 MiB 39.6 MiB +10%
libsyntax 51.1 MiB 60.5 MiB +18.4%
libcollections 11.2 MiB 12.8 MiB +14.3%
```
This only affects binaries containing metadata (rlibs and dylibs), executables should not be affected in size.
Fixes#19228 and probably #22226.
This allows to create proper debuginfo line information for items inlined from other crates (e.g. instantiations of generics).
Only the codemap's 'metadata' is stored in a crate's metadata. That is, just filename, line-beginnings, etc. but not the actual source code itself. We are thus missing the opportunity of making Rust the first "open-source-only" programming language out there. Pity.
The failing concurrency example was doing something different from the
working example. This commit changes just enough of the failing example
to (1) still fail with the same error, (2) tries to do the same as the
working example (increment a vector value and print it).
r? @steveklabnik
This same source is being built in the Cargo ecosystem and hence needs to build
on stable Rust as well. This commit places the `no_std` attribute along with the
`no_std` feature behind a `cfg_attr` flag so they are not processed when
compiled on crates.io
Runway for RFC 809 (overloaded box/placement-in) by adding type annotations or explicit calls to `Box::new` where I found it necessary on PR #22086.
I have broken this up into more than one PR because the entire commit chain (see PR #22086) is long, widespread and unwieldy to rebase frequently.
To my knowledge this is not a breaking change. Also, there is in principle nothing stopping someone from reverting some/all of these annotations, since without the rest of the commit chain in #22086, the associated code would continue to compile.
All I can do is ask: Try to discourage others from removing seemingly "unnecessary" uses of the `Box` type or the `Box::new()` function, until the rest of RFC 809 lands.
Many of the modifications putting in `Box::new` calls also include a
pointer to Issue 22405, which tracks going back to `box <expr>` if
possible in the future.
(Still tried to use `Box<_>` where it sufficed; thus some tests still
have `box_syntax` enabled, as they use a mix of `box` and `Box::new`.)
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
This stability attribute was left out by accident and the stability pass has
since picked up the ability to check for this. As a result, crates are currently
getting warnings for implementations of `Index`.
Make build timestamp files robust in face of concurrent source modification.
Strategy: If the end goal is to touch e.g. `stamp.std`, then we first touch `stamp.std.start_time` before doing anything else. Then when the receipe finishes, we touch `stamp.std` using the timestamp from `stamp.std.start_time` as the reference time, and remove `stamp.std.start_time`.
Fix#6518.
Rebase and follow-through on work done by @cmr and @aatch.
Implements most of rust-lang/rfcs#560. Errors encountered from the checks during building were fixed.
The checks for division, remainder and bit-shifting have not been implemented yet.
See also PR #20795
cc @Aatch ; cc @nikomatsakis
Strategy: If the end goal is to touch e.g. `stamp.std`, then we first
touch `stamp.std.start_time` before doing anything else. Then when
the receipe finishes, we touch `stamp.std` using the timestamp from
`stamp.std.start_time` as the reference time, and remove
`stamp.std.start_time`.
Fix#6518.
Make `test/run-pass/backtrace.rs` more robust about own host environment
Namely, I have been annoyed in the past when I have done `RUST_BACKTRACE=1 make check` only to discover (again) that such a trick causes this test to fail, because it assumes that the `RUST_BACKTRACE` environment variable is not set.
Fix#22870
aarch64-linux-android build has been broken since #22839.
Aarch64 android has _Unwind_GetIPInfo, so re-define this only for arm32 android.
r? @alexcrichton
