| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
fixes move analysis
Fixed compiler error by correct checking when dereferencing
Fix #48962
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expand macros in `extern {}` blocks
This permits macro and proc-macro and attribute invocations (the latter only with the `proc_macro` feature of course) in `extern {}` blocks, gated behind a new `macros_in_extern` feature.
A tracking issue is now open at #49476
closes #48747
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove all unstable placement features
Closes #22181, #27779. Effectively makes the assortment of placement RFCs (rust-lang/rfcs#470, rust-lang/rfcs#809, rust-lang/rfcs#1228) 'unaccepted'. It leaves `box_syntax` and keeps the `<-` token as recognised by libsyntax.
------------------------
I don't know the correct process for unaccepting an unstable feature that was accepted as an RFC so...here's a PR.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not particularly happy about doing this (I know it'll be unpopular), but I think it's the most honest expression of how things stand today. I've been motivated by a [post on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7wrqk2/when_will_box_and_placementin_syntax_be_stable/) which asks when these features will be stable - the features have received little RFC-style design work since the end of 2015 (~2 years ago) and leaving them in limbo confuses people who want to know where they're up to. Without additional design work that needs to happen (see the collection of unresolved questions later in this post) they can't really get stabilised, and I think that design work would be most suited to an RFC rather than (currently mostly unused) experimental features in Rust nightly.
I have my own motivations - it's very simple to 'defeat' placement in debug mode today and I don't want a placement in Rust that a) has no guarantees to work and b) has no plan for in-place serde deserialisation.
There's a quote in [1]: "Ordinarily these uncertainties might lead to the RFC being postponed. [The RFC seems like a promising direction hence we will accept since it] will thus give us immediate experience with the design and help in determining the best final solution.". I propose that there have been enough additional uncertainties raised since then that the original direction is less promising and we should be think about the problem anew.
(a historical note: the first mention of placement (under that name - uninit pointers were earlier) in an RFC AFAIK is [0] in late 2014 (pre-1.0). RFCs since then have built on this base - [1] is a comment in Feb 2015 accepting a more conservative design of the Place* traits - this is back when serde still required aster and seemed to break every other nightly! A lot has changed since then, perhaps placement should too)
------------------------
Concrete unresolved questions include:
- making placement work in debug mode [7]
- making placement work for serde/with fallible creation [5], [irlo2], [8]
- trait design:
- opting into not consuming the placer in `Placer::make_place` - [2]
- trait proliferation - [4] (+ others in that thread)
- fallible allocation - [3], [4] (+ others in that thread)
- support for DSTs/unsized structs (if at all) - [1], [6]
More speculative unresolved questions include:
- better trait design with in the context of future language features [irlo1] (Q11), [irlo3]
- interaction between custom allocators and placement [irlo3]
[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/470
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/809#issuecomment-73910414
[2] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1286
[3] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1315
[4] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27779#issuecomment-146711893
[5] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27779#issuecomment-285562402
[6] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27779#issuecomment-354464938
[7] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27779#issuecomment-358025344
[8] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1228#issuecomment-190825370
[irlo1] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/placement-nwbi-faq-new-box-in-left-arrow/2789
[irlo2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/placement-nwbi-faq-new-box-in-left-arrow/2789/19
[irlo3] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/lang-team-minutes-feature-status-report-placement-in-and-box/4646
|
|
|
|
Remove adjacent all-const match arm hack.
An old fix for moves-in-guards had a hack for adjacent all-const match arms.
The hack was explained in a comment, which you can see here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/22580/files#diff-402a0fa4b3c6755c5650027c6d4cf1efR497
But hack was incomplete (and thus unsound), as pointed out here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47295#issuecomment-357108458
Plus, it is likely to be at least tricky to reimplement this hack in
the new NLL borrowck.
So rather than try to preserve the hack, we want to try to just remove
it outright. (At least to see the results of a crater run.)
[breaking-change]
This is a breaking-change, but our hope is that no one is actually
relying on such an extreme special case. (We hypothesize the hack was
originally added to accommodate a file in our own test suite, not code
in the wild.)
|
|
Closes #22181, #27779
|
|
Easy edition feature flag
We no longer gate features on epochs; instead we have a `#![feature(rust_2018_preview)]` that flips on a bunch of features (currently dyn_trait).
Based on #49001 to avoid merge conflicts
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
Trim discriminants to their final type size
r? @eddyb
fixes #49181
|
|
We only support stack probes on x86 and x86_64.
Other arches are already ignored.
|
|
The stable reexport `std::collections::Bound` is now deprecated.
Another deprecated reexport could be added in `alloc`,
but that crate is unstable.
|
|
|
|
Stabilize underscore lifetimes
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 12 pull requests
- Successful merges: #49243, #49329, #49364, #49400, #49405, #49427, #49428, #49429, #49439, #49442, #49444, #49452
- Failed merges:
|
|
Enable target_feature on any LLVM 6+
In `LLVMRustHasFeature()`, rather than using `MCInfo->getFeatureTable()`
that is specific to Rust's LLVM fork, we can use this in LLVM 6:
/// Check whether the subtarget features are enabled/disabled as per
/// the provided string, ignoring all other features.
bool checkFeatures(StringRef FS) const;
Now rustc using external LLVM can also have `target_feature`.
r? @alexcrichton
|
|
An old fix for moves-in-guards had a hack for adjacent all-const match arms.
The hack was explained in a comment, which you can see here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/22580/files#diff-402a0fa4b3c6755c5650027c6d4cf1efR497
But hack was incomplete (and thus unsound), as pointed out here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47295#issuecomment-357108458
Plus, it is likely to be at least tricky to reimplement this hack in
the new NLL borrowck.
So rather than try to preserve the hack, we want to try to just remove
it outright. (At least to see the results of a crater run.)
[breaking-change]
This is a breaking-change, but our hope is that no one is actually
relying on such an extreme special case. (We hypothesize the hack was
originally added to accommodate a file in our own test suite, not code
in the wild.)
|
|
This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.
|
|
In `LLVMRustHasFeature()`, rather than using `MCInfo->getFeatureTable()`
that is specific to Rust's LLVM fork, we can use this in LLVM 6:
/// Check whether the subtarget features are enabled/disabled as per
/// the provided string, ignoring all other features.
bool checkFeatures(StringRef FS) const;
Now rustc using external LLVM can also have `target_feature`.
|
|
|
|
Fix pretty-printing for raw identifiers
|
|
|
|
|
|
librustc_mir/transform/elaborate_drops.rs — drop of untracked, uninitialized value
Fix #48962
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adds simd_select intrinsic
The select SIMD intrinsic is used to select elements from two SIMD vectors using a mask:
```rust
let mask = b8x4::new(true, false, false, true);
let a = f32x4::new(1., 2., 3., 4.);
let b = f32x4::new(5., 6., 7., 8.);
assert_eq!(simd_select(mask, a, b), f32x4::new(1., 6., 7., 4.));
```
The number of lanes between the mask and the vectors must match, but the vector width of the mask does not need to match that of the vectors. The mask is required to be a vector of signed integers.
Note: this intrinsic will be exposed via `std::simd`'s vector masks - users are not expected to use it directly.
|
|
Stabilize the copy_closures and clone_closures features
In addition to the `Fn*` family of traits, closures now implement `Copy` (and similarly `Clone`) if all of the captures do.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44490
|
|
Make resuming generators unsafe instead of the creation of immovable generators
cc @withoutboats
Fixes #47787
|
|
Stabilize termination_trait, split out termination_trait_test
For #48453.
First time contribution, so I'd really appreciate any feedback on how this PR can be better.
Not sure exactly what kind of documentation update is needed. If there is no PR to update the reference, I can try doing that this week as I have time.
|
|
NLL should identify and respect the lifetime annotations that the user wrote
Part of #47184.
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Command: Support posix_spawn() on FreeBSD/OSX/GNU Linux
|
|
Add 12 num::NonZero* types for primitive integers, deprecate core::nonzero
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2307
Tracking issue: ~~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27730~~ https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49137
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27730
|
|
In addition to the `Fn*` family of traits, closures now implement `Copy` (and similarly `Clone`) if all of the captures do.
|
|
|
|
Fix the conversion between bit representations and i128 representations
fixes #49181
the `Discr` type now encodes the bit representation instead of `i128` or `u128` casted to `u128`.
r? @eddyb
|
|
address some FIXME whose associated issues were marked as closed
part of #44366
|
|
Deprecate the AsciiExt trait in favor of inherent methods
The trait and some of its methods are stable and will remain.
Some of the newer methods are unstable and can be removed later.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39658
|
|
|
|
The trait and some of its methods are stable and will remain.
Some of the newer methods are unstable and can be removed later.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39658
|
|
generators. Fixes #47787
|
