<sup>**context:** moving back to a layered approach to type checking.</sup>
It looks like they'd not ended up tightly coupled in the time one was owned by the other. Every instance outside of `FnCtxt.inh` was from an `InferCtxt` created and dropped in the same function body.
This conflicts slightly with #30652, but there too it looks like the `FulfillmentContext` is from an `InferCtxt` that is created and dropped within the same function body (across one call to a module-private function).
That said, I heard that the PR that originally moved `FulfillmentContext` into `InferCtxt` was big, which leaves me concerned that I'm missing something.
r? @nikomatsakis
This fixes#31512 for me.
A bit of explanation: I want to have `check_block_post(&mut self, &Context, &Block)` and `check_crate_post(&mut self, &Context, &Crate)` methods in both early and late lint passes. Ideally we'd have _post methods for all operations that walk, but this'll do for now.
@Manishearth r?
r? @brson
cc @alexcrichton
I still need to add error code explanation test with this, but I can't figure out a way to generate the `.md` files in order to test example source codes.
Will fix#27328.
Tools which rely on DWARF for generating code coverage report, don't generate accurate numbers on test builds. For instance, [this sample main](757bdbf388/src/main.rs) returns [100% coverage](https://coveralls.io/builds/4940156/source?filename=main.rs) when [kcov](https://github.com/SimonKagstrom/kcov/) runs.
With @pnkfelix 's great help, we could narrow down the issue: The linker strips unused function during phase 6. Here's a patch which stops stripping when someone calls `rustc --test $ARGS`. @pnkfelix wasn't sure if we should add a new flag, or just use --test. What do you think @alexcrichton ?
Also, I'm not too sure: where is the best place to add a test for this addition?
Thanks for the help!
Turning gc-sections off improves code coverage based for tools which
use DWARF debugging information (like kcov). Otherwise dead code is
stripped and kcov returns a coverage percentage that doesn't reflect
reality.
This commit is an implementation of the new compiler flags required by [RFC
1361][rfc]. This specifically adds a new `cfg` option to the `--print` flag to
the compiler. This new directive will print the defined `#[cfg]` directives by
the compiler for the target in question.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1361-cargo-cfg-dependencies.md
Why do this: The RegionGraph representation previously conflated all
of the non-variable regions (i.e. the concrete regions such as
lifetime parameters to the current function) into a single dummy node.
A single dummy node leads DFS on a graph `'a -> '_#1 -> '_#0 -> 'b` to
claim that `'_#1` is reachable from `'_#0` (due to `'a` and `'b` being
conflated in the graph representation), which is incorrect (and can
lead to soundness bugs later on in compilation, see #30438).
Splitting the dummy node ensures that DFS will never introduce new
ancestor relationships between nodes for variable regions in the
graph.
Issue #31109 uncovered two semi-related problems:
* A panic in `str::parse::<f64>`
* A panic in `rustc::middle::const_eval::lit_to_const` where the result of float parsing was unwrapped.
This series of commits fixes both issues and also drive-by-fixes some things I noticed while tracking down the parsing panic.
The scope of these refactorings is a little bit bigger than the title implies. See each commit for details.
I’m submitting this for nitpicking now (the first 4 commits), because I feel the basic idea/implementation is sound and should work. I will eventually expand this PR to cover the translator changes necessary for all this to work (+ tests), ~~and perhaps implement a dynamic dropping scheme while I’m at it as well.~~
r? @nikomatsakis
This change also modifies the dep graph infrastructure to keep track of the number of active tasks, so that even if we are not building the full dep-graph, we still get assertions when there is no active task and one does something that would add a read/write edge. This is particularly helpful since, if the assertions are *not* active, you wind up with the error happening in the message processing thread, which is too late to know the correct backtrace.
~~Before landing, I need to do some performance measurements. Those are underway.~~
See measurements below. No real effect on time.
r? @michaelwoerister
Have the `ObligationForest` keep some per-tree state (or type `T`) and have it give a mutable reference for use when processing obligations. In this case, it will be a hashmap. This obviously affects the work that @soltanmm has been doing on snapshotting. I partly want to toss this out there for discussion.
Fixes#31157. (The test in question goes to approx. 30s instead of 5 minutes for me.)
cc #30977.
cc @aturon @arielb1 @soltanmm
r? @aturon who reviewed original `ObligationForest`
