| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
This commit stabilizes the `std::time` module and the `Duration` type.
`Duration::span` remains unstable, and the `Display` implementation for
`Duration` has been removed as it is still being reworked and all trait
implementations for stable types are de facto stable.
This is a [breaking-change] to those using `Duration`'s `Display`
implementation.
Conflicts:
src/librustc/lib.rs
src/libstd/time/duration.rs
|
|
This is a temporary workaround for the bugs that have been found in
the implementation of PR #26173.
* pnkfelix is unavailable in the short-term (i.e. for the next week) to fix them.
* When the bugs are fixed, we will turn this back on by default.
(If you want to play with the known-to-be-buggy optimization in the
meantime, you can opt-back in via the debugging option that this
commit is toggling.)
|
|
After #26694, the overloaded operator and "impl not known at method lookup time" cases started triggering the lint.
I've also added checks for overloaded autoderef and method calls via paths (i.e. `T::method()`).
All new 8 test cases did not trigger the lint before #26694.
r? @huonw
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Inspired by discussion with Gankro.)
|
|
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
Print the error message and then what is expected by the repeat count so the output makes more sense when there is an error in the const expression
|
|
Improves diagnostics in various locations, namely:
* A few error messages that orignally were a mix of an error message and suggestion how to fix it have been split up into two messages: an error and help/hint.
* Never report “illegal”. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27288
|
|
|
|
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1193][rfc] which adds the ability to
the compiler to cap the lint level for the entire compilation session. This flag
will ensure that no lints will go above this level, and Cargo will primarily use
this flag passing `--cap-lints allow` to all upstream dependencies.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1193
Closes #27259
|
|
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1193][rfc] which adds the ability to
the compiler to cap the lint level for the entire compilation session. This flag
will ensure that no lints will go above this level, and Cargo will primarily use
this flag passing `--cap-lints allow` to all upstream dependencies.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1193
Closes #27259
|
|
|
|
this has quite some fallout. but also made lots of stuff more readable imo
[breaking-change] for plugin authors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(already thumbs-upped pre-rebase by nikomatsakis)
|
|
Many of these have long since reached their stage of being obsolete, so this
commit starts the removal process for all of them. The unstable features that
were deprecated are:
* box_heap
* cmp_partial
* fs_time
* hash_default
* int_slice
* iter_min_max
* iter_reset_fuse
* iter_to_vec
* map_in_place
* move_from
* owned_ascii_ext
* page_size
* read_and_zero
* scan_state
* slice_chars
* slice_position_elem
* subslice_offset
|
|
Many of these have long since reached their stage of being obsolete, so this
commit starts the removal process for all of them. The unstable features that
were deprecated are:
* cmp_partial
* fs_time
* hash_default
* int_slice
* iter_min_max
* iter_reset_fuse
* iter_to_vec
* map_in_place
* move_from
* owned_ascii_ext
* page_size
* read_and_zero
* scan_state
* slice_chars
* slice_position_elem
* subslice_offset
|
|
|
|
This does two things:
* removes ast::LocalSource, where only one variant was used because for-loop expansion has changed. One reason that this slipped into here is because the code in `check_local` which checks for `LocalSource::LocalFor` would report the same error as in `check_exhaustive` while using the wrong error code (E0005 instead of E0297).
* silences the warning about already used diagnostic code E0005 (fixes #27279)
passes `make check` locally.
|
|
Fixes #27279
|
|
`LocalSource` indicated wether a let binding originated from for-loop desugaring to enable specialized error messages, but for-loop expansion has changed and this is now achieved through `MatchSource::ForLoopDesugar`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The algorithm was not correctly detecting conflicts after moving
defaults into TypeVariableValue. The updated algorithm
correctly detects and reports conflicts with information about
where the conflict occured and which items the defaults were
introduced by. The span's for said items are not being correctly
attached and still need to be patched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This patch allows type parameter defaults to influence type inference. This is a possible breaking change since it effects the way type inference works and will have different behavior when mixing defaults and literal fallback.
|
|
Correct regression in type-inference caused by failing to reconfirm that
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes #26952.
r? @eddyb
cc @frankmcsherry
|
|
***Edit: Fixed now.*** I'm pretty sure the way I'm using LLVMReplaceAllUsesWith here is
unsafe... but before I figure out how to fix that, I'd like a
reality-check: is this actually useful?
|
|
|
|
There isn't any particularly good reason for this restriction, so just
get rid of it, and fix trans to handle this case.
|
|
I'll be adding more commits to this PR as the weekend progresses. Was hoping to make this a mega-PR, but getting some eyes on this early would be nice too.
r? @steveklabnik
r? @eddyb on the object safety bits
cc @michaelsproul
Part of #24407
|
|
- Successful merges: #27137, #27145, #27177, #27193, #27212, #27220, #27229, #27235, #27238, #27244, #27251
- Failed merges:
|
|
Hi all.
This is my first contribution to Rust and fixes an issue causing an invalid error message to be presented to the user when using unit struct as length of a repeat expression, issue #27008. The solution is based on suggestions by @oli-obk, but as I'm a complete newbie to this, I have no clue if I got them right :)
The biggest concern I have is that if the `NodeId` I'm returning is the correct one or not (it's not meaningful in this case but I think it would be nice to get it right).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refactors the "desugaring" of closures to expose the types of the upvars. This is necessary to be faithful with how actual structs work. The reasoning of the particular desugaring that I chose is explained in a fairly detailed comment.
As a side-effect, recursive closure types are prohibited unless a trait object intermediary is used. This fixes #25954 and also eliminates concerns about unrepresentable closure types that have infinite size, I believe. I don't believe this can cause regressions because of #25954.
(As for motivation, besides #25954 etc, this work is also intended as refactoring in support of incremental compilation, since closures are one of the thornier cases encountered when attempting to split node-ids into item-ids and within-item-ids. The goal is to eliminate the "internal def-id" distinction in astdecoding. However, I have to do more work on trans to really make progress there.)
r? @nrc
|
|
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes #26952.
|
|
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
|
