| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
This is similar to the libs version, which allow an `issue` field in the
`#[unstable]` attribute.
cc #28244
|
|
This is similar to the libs version, which allow an `issue` field in the
`#[unstable]` attribute.
cc #28244
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no longer a need for that pattern, since enums are now qualified.
|
|
This allows marking attributes as whitelisted/crate-only independent of
their feature gate status.
Closes #24213
|
|
There is no longer a need for that pattern, since enums are now qualified.
|
|
|
|
This is purposely separate to the "rust-intrinsic" ABI, because these
intrinsics are theoretically going to become stable, and should be fine
to be independent of the compiler/language internals since they're
intimately to the platform.
|
|
This is theoretically a breaking change, but GitHub search turns up no
uses of it, and most non-built-in cfg's are passed via cargo features,
which look like `feature = "..."`, and hence can't overlap.
|
|
|
|
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1183][rfc] which allows swapping out
the default allocator on nightly Rust. No new stable surface area should be
added as a part of this commit.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1183
Two new attributes have been added to the compiler:
* `#![needs_allocator]` - this is used by liballoc (and likely only liballoc) to
indicate that it requires an allocator crate to be in scope.
* `#![allocator]` - this is a indicator that the crate is an allocator which can
satisfy the `needs_allocator` attribute above.
The ABI of the allocator crate is defined to be a set of symbols that implement
the standard Rust allocation/deallocation functions. The symbols are not
currently checked for exhaustiveness or typechecked. There are also a number of
restrictions on these crates:
* An allocator crate cannot transitively depend on a crate that is flagged as
needing an allocator (e.g. allocator crates can't depend on liballoc).
* There can only be one explicitly linked allocator in a final image.
* If no allocator is explicitly requested one will be injected on behalf of the
compiler. Binaries and Rust dylibs will use jemalloc by default where
available and staticlibs/other dylibs will use the system allocator by
default.
Two allocators are provided by the distribution by default, `alloc_system` and
`alloc_jemalloc` which operate as advertised.
Closes #27389
|
|
To correctly reexport statically included libraries from a DLL on Windows, the
compiler will soon need to have knowledge about what symbols are statically
included and which are not. To solve this problem a new unstable
`#[linked_from]` attribute is being added and recognized on `extern` blocks to
indicate which native library the symbols are coming from.
The compiler then keeps track of what the set of FFI symbols are that are
included statically. This information will be used in a future commit to
configure how we invoke the linker on Windows.
|
|
This commit removes all morestack support from the compiler which entails:
* Segmented stacks are no longer emitted in codegen.
* We no longer build or distribute libmorestack.a
* The `stack_exhausted` lang item is no longer required
The only current use of the segmented stack support in LLVM is to detect stack
overflow. This is no longer really required, however, because we already have
guard pages for all threads and registered signal handlers watching for a
segfault on those pages (to print out a stack overflow message). Additionally,
major platforms (aka Windows) already don't use morestack.
This means that Rust is by default less likely to catch stack overflows because
if a function takes up more than one page of stack space it won't hit the guard
page. This is what the purpose of morestack was (to catch this case), but it's
better served with stack probes which have more cross platform support and no
runtime support necessary. Until LLVM supports this for all platform it looks
like morestack isn't really buying us much.
cc #16012 (still need stack probes)
Closes #26458 (a drive-by fix to help diagnostics on stack overflow)
r? @brson
|
|
This commit removes all morestack support from the compiler which entails:
* Segmented stacks are no longer emitted in codegen.
* We no longer build or distribute libmorestack.a
* The `stack_exhausted` lang item is no longer required
The only current use of the segmented stack support in LLVM is to detect stack
overflow. This is no longer really required, however, because we already have
guard pages for all threads and registered signal handlers watching for a
segfault on those pages (to print out a stack overflow message). Additionally,
major platforms (aka Windows) already don't use morestack.
This means that Rust is by default less likely to catch stack overflows because
if a function takes up more than one page of stack space it won't hit the guard
page. This is what the purpose of morestack was (to catch this case), but it's
better served with stack probes which have more cross platform support and no
runtime support necessary. Until LLVM supports this for all platform it looks
like morestack isn't really buying us much.
cc #16012 (still need stack probes)
Closes #26458 (a drive-by fix to help diagnostics on stack overflow)
|
|
This pull request implements the functionality for [RFC 873](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0873-type-macros.md). This is currently just an update of @freebroccolo's branch from January, the corresponding commits are linked in each commit message.
@nikomatsakis and I had talked about updating the macro language to support a lifetime fragment specifier, and it is possible to do that work on this branch as well. If so we can (collectively) talk about it next week during the pre-RustCamp work week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1184][rfc] which tweaks the behavior of
the `#![no_std]` attribute and adds a new `#![no_core]` attribute. The
`#![no_std]` attribute now injects `extern crate core` at the top of the crate
as well as the libcore prelude into all modules (in the same manner as the
standard library's prelude). The `#![no_core]` attribute disables both std and
core injection.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1184
|
|
There are multiple issues with them as designed and implemented.
cc #27364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
update test/compile-fail/feature-gate-box-expr.rs to reflect new feature gates.
Part of what lands with Issue 22181.
|
|
Even after expansion, the generated expressions still track depth of
such pushes (i.e. how often you have "pushed" without a corresponding
"pop"), and we add a rule that in a context with a positive
`push_unsafe!` depth, it is effectively an `unsafe` block context.
(This way, we can inject code that uses `unsafe` features, but still
contains within it a sub-expression that should inherit the outer
safety checking setting, outside of the injected code.)
This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably
should be feature-gated forever (if possible).
ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
|
|
|
|
It now says '#[feature] may not be used on the stable release channel'.
I had to convert this error from a lint to a normal compiler error.
I left the lint previously-used for this in place since removing it is
a breaking change. It will just go unused until the end of time.
Fixes #24125
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was always a weird feature, and isn't being used in the compiler.
Static assertions should be done better than this.
This implements RFC #1096.
Fixes #13951
Fixes #23008
Fixes #6676
This is behind a feature gate, but that's still a
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
This is a port of @eddyb's `const-fn` branch. I rebased it, tweaked a few things, and added tests as well as a feature gate. The set of tests is still pretty rudimentary, I'd appreciate suggestions on new tests to write. Also, a double-check that the feature-gate covers all necessary cases.
One question: currently, the feature-gate allows the *use* of const functions from stable code, just not the definition. This seems to fit our usual strategy, and implies that we might (perhaps) allow some constant functions in libstd someday, even before stabilizing const-fn, if we were willing to commit to the existence of const fns but found some details of their impl unsatisfactory.
r? @pnkfelix
|
|
This lets plugin authors opt attributes out of the `custom_attribute`
and `unused_attribute` checks.
cc @thepowersgang
|
|
- add feature gate
- add basic tests
- adjust parser to eliminate conflict between `const fn` and associated
constants
- allow `const fn` in traits/trait-impls, but forbid later in type check
- correct some merge conflicts
|
|
|
|
The attribute was removed by #16499.
|
|
|
|
This lets plugin authors opt attributes out of the `custom_attribute`
and `unused_attribute` checks.
|
|
|
|
Closes #17841.
The majority of the work should be done, e.g. trait and inherent impls, different forms of UFCS syntax, defaults, and cross-crate usage. It's probably enough to replace the constants in `f32`, `i8`, and so on, or close to good enough.
There is still some significant functionality missing from this commit:
- ~~Associated consts can't be used in match patterns at all. This is simply because I haven't updated the relevant bits in the parser or `resolve`, but it's *probably* not hard to get working.~~
- Since you can't select an impl for trait-associated consts until partway through type-checking, there are some problems with code that assumes that you can check constants earlier. Associated consts that are not in inherent impls cause ICEs if you try to use them in array sizes or match ranges. For similar reasons, `check_static_recursion` doesn't check them properly, so the stack goes ka-blooey if you use an associated constant that's recursively defined. That's a bit trickier to solve; I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is yet.
- Dealing with consts associated with type parameters will raise some new issues (e.g. if you have a `T: Int` type parameter and want to use `<T>::ZERO`). See rust-lang/rfcs#865.
- ~~Unused associated consts don't seem to trigger the `dead_code` lint when they should. Probably easy to fix.~~
Also, this is the first time I've been spelunking in rustc to such a large extent, so I've probably done some silly things in a couple of places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
