| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Reject specialized Drop impls.
See Issue #8142 for discussion.
This makes it illegal for a Drop impl to be more specialized than the original item.
So for example, all of the following are now rejected (when they would have been blindly accepted before):
```rust
struct S<A> { ... };
impl Drop for S<i8> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete type
struct T<'a> { ... };
impl Drop for T<'static> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete region
struct U<A> { ... };
impl<A:Clone> Drop for U<A> { ... } // error: added extra type requirement
struct V<'a,'b>;
impl<'a,'b:a> Drop for V<'a,'b> { ... } // error: added extra region requirement
```
Due to examples like the above, this is a [breaking-change].
(The fix is to either remove the specialization from the `Drop` impl, or to transcribe the requirements into the struct/enum definition; examples of both are shown in the PR's fixed to `libstd`.)
----
This is likely to be the last thing blocking the removal of the `#[unsafe_destructor]` attribute.
Fix #8142
Fix #23584
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflicts:
src/compiletest/compiletest.rs
src/libcollections/lib.rs
src/librustc_back/lib.rs
src/libserialize/lib.rs
src/libstd/lib.rs
src/libtest/lib.rs
src/test/run-make/rustdoc-default-impl/foo.rs
src/test/run-pass/env-home-dir.rs
|
|
This is a [breaking-change]. When indexing a generic map (hashmap, etc) using the `[]` operator, it is now necessary to borrow explicitly, so change `map[key]` to `map[&key]` (consistent with the `get` routine). However, indexing of string-valued maps with constant strings can now be written `map["abc"]`.
r? @japaric
cc @aturon @Gankro
|
|
Conflicts:
src/libstd/thread/local.rs
|
|
This commit implements [RFC
909](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/909):
The `std::thread_local` module is now deprecated, and its contents are
available directly in `std::thread` as `LocalKey`, `LocalKeyState`, and
`ScopedKey`.
The macros remain exactly as they were, which means little if any code
should break. Nevertheless, this is technically a:
[breaking-change]
Closes #23547
|
