Added unit test to prevent similar mistakes from happening again. The
previous method was wrong because it dereferenced a pointer to a void type to
match on the result. No self pointer was needed, and the correct method
signature took the self value by value.
When trying to import nonexistent items from existing modules, specify that
that is what happened, rather than just reporting "unresolved name".
Ideally the error would be reported on the span of the import... but I do not see a way to get a span there. Help appreciated 😄
This pull request adds 4 atomic intrinsics to the compiler, in preparation for #5042.
* `atomic_load(src: &int) -> int` performs an atomic sequentially consistent load.
* `atomic_load_acq(src: &int) -> int` performs an atomic acquiring load.
* `atomic_store(dst: &mut int, val: int)` performs an atomic sequentially consistent store.
* `atomic_store_rel(dst: &mut int, val: int)` performs an atomic releasing store.
For more information about the whole acquire/release thing: http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html
r?
Every unresolved import is reported. An additional error message isn't useful
and obscures (imo) the real errors: I need to take it into account when
looking at the error count.
In this commit I added a useful utility type, named Void, that encapsulates the
doable but annoying job of creating an uninhabited type. As well, a function on
that type, named absurd, was created which is useful for ignoring the result of
matching on that type. No unit tests were created because it is not possible to
create an instance of this type to test the usage of.
This type is useful because it is like NonCopyable in that it can be used to
create a type with special characteristics without special bloat. For instance,
instead of typing pub struct PhantomType { priv contents : () } for each void
type one may want to use one can simply type pub struct PhantomType (Void);.
This type make such special cases much easier to write.
The default versions (atomic_load and atomic_store) are sequentially consistent.
The atomic_load_acq intrinsic acquires as described in [1].
The atomic_store_rel intrinsic releases as described in [1].
[1]: http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html
r? @nikomatsakis In #6319, several people mentioned they ran into a "computing
fictitious type" ICE in trans. This turns out to be because some
of my recent changes to typeck::check::_match resulted in type errors
getting reported with ty_err as the expected type, which meant the errors
were suppressed, and typechecking incorrectly succeeded (since the errors
weren't recorded).
Changed the error messages in these cases not to use an expected type at all,
rather, printing out a string describing the type that was expected (which is
what the code originally did). The result is a bit repetitive and the
proliferation of error-reporting functions in typeck::infer is a bit annoying,
but I thought it was important to fix this now; more cleanup can happen later.
In #6319, several people mentioned they ran into a "computing
fictitious type" ICE in trans. This turns out to be because some
of my recent changes to typeck::check::_match resulted in type errors
getting reported with ty_err as the expected type, which meant the errors
were suppressed, and typechecking incorrectly succeeded (since the errors
weren't recorded).
Changed the error messages in these cases not to use an expected type at all,
rather, printing out a string describing the type that was expected (which is
what the code originally did). The result is a bit repetitive and the
proliferation of error-reporting functions in typeck::infer is a bit annoying,
but I thought it was important to fix this now; more cleanup can happen later.
Fixes#6378
Don't pass the binary name to the LLVMRustExecuteJIT closure, otherwise it will leak memory; the binary name doesn't seem to be needed, anyhow.
**Caveat**: With the current commit, this check only works for `match`s, the checks (incorrectly) do not run for patterns in `let`s, and invalid/unsafe code compiles.
I don't know how to fix this, I experimented with some things to try to make let patterns and match patterns run on the same code (since this would presumably fix many of the other unsoundness issues of let-patterns, e.g. #6225), but I don't understand enough of the code. (I think I heard someone talking about a fix for `let` being in progress?)
Fixes#6344 and #6341.
