| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit removes pretty-expanded from all tests that wind up calling panic!
one way or another now that its internals are unstable.
|
|
Now that features must be declared expanded source often does not compile.
This adds 'pretty-expanded' to a bunch of test cases that still work.
|
|
This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
|
|
If these tests exit while a thread is panicking it often leads to situations
like #22628.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw these hanging on a windows bot, and the previous ones seem to have calmed
down after switching from Thread::spawn to Thread::scoped, so try that here as
well!
|
|
instead in the future.)
|
|
This removes a large array of deprecated functionality, regardless of how
recently it was deprecated. The purpose of this commit is to clean out the
standard libraries and compiler for the upcoming alpha release.
Some notable compiler changes were to enable warnings for all now-deprecated
command line arguments (previously the deprecated versions were silently
accepted) as well as removing deriving(Zero) entirely (the trait was removed).
The distribution no longer contains the libtime or libregex_macros crates. Both
of these have been deprecated for some time and are available externally.
|
|
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]
|
|
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
How to update your code:
* Instead of `~EXPR`, you should write `box EXPR`.
* Instead of `~TYPE`, you should write `Box<Type>`.
* Instead of `~PATTERN`, you should write `box PATTERN`.
[breaking-change]
|
|
This commit shreds all remnants of libextra from the compiler and standard
distribution. Two modules, c_vec/tempfile, were moved into libstd after some
cleanup, and the other modules were moved to separate crates as seen fit.
Closes #8784
Closes #12413
Closes #12576
|
|
This was previously implemented, and it just needed a snapshot to go through
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Closes #2120.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issue #1022
|
|
Issue #1022
|
|
XFAIL the ones that don't work
Issue #409
|
