auto merge of #10603 : alexcrichton/rust/no-linked-failure, r=brson

The reasons for doing this are:

* The model on which linked failure is based is inherently complex
* The implementation is also very complex, and there are few remaining who
  fully understand the implementation
* There are existing race conditions in the core context switching function of
  the scheduler, and possibly others.
* It's unclear whether this model of linked failure maps well to a 1:1 threading
  model

Linked failure is often a desired aspect of tasks, but we would like to take a
much more conservative approach in re-implementing linked failure if at all.

Closes #8674
Closes #8318
Closes #8863

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions