| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
This includes updating the language items and marking what needs to
change after a snapshot.
If you do not use the standard library, the language items you need to
implement have changed. For example:
```rust
#[lang = "fail_fmt"] fn fail_fmt() -> ! { loop {} }
```
is now
```rust
#[lang = "panic_fmt"] fn panic_fmt() -> ! { loop {} }
```
Related, lesser-implemented language items `fail` and
`fail_bounds_check` have become `panic` and `panic_bounds_check`, as
well. These are implemented by `libcore`, so it is unlikely (though
possible!) that these two renamings will affect you.
[breaking-change]
Fix test suite
|
|
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
|
|
floating point numbers for real.
This will break code that looks like:
let mut x = 0;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Change that code to:
let mut x = 0i;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Closes #15201.
[breaking-change]
|
|
This can break code that looked like:
impl Foo for Box<Any> {
fn f(&self) { ... }
}
let x: Box<Any + Send> = ...;
x.f();
Change such code to:
impl Foo for Box<Any> {
fn f(&self) { ... }
}
let x: Box<Any> = ...;
x.f();
That is, upcast before calling methods.
This is a conservative solution to #5781. A more proper treatment (see
the xfail'd `trait-contravariant-self.rs`) would take variance into
account. This change fixes the soundness hole.
Some library changes had to be made to make this work. In particular,
`Box<Any>` is no longer showable, and only `Box<Any+Send>` is showable.
Eventually, this restriction can be lifted; for now, it does not prove
too onerous, because `Any` is only used for propagating the result of
task failure.
This patch also adds a test for the variance inference work in #12828,
which accidentally landed as part of DST.
Closes #5781.
[breaking-change]
|
|
The constructor for `TaskBuilder` is being changed to an associated
function called `new` for consistency with the rest of the standard
library.
Closes #13666
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
Declare a `type SendStr = MaybeOwned<'static>` to ease readibility of
types that needed the old SendStr behavior.
Implement all the traits for MaybeOwned that SendStr used to implement.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
task with a `SendStr` directly
|
