The `?` postfix operator is sugar equivalent to the try! macro, but is more amenable to chaining:
`File::open("foo")?.metadata()?.is_dir()`.
`?` is accepted on any *expression* that can return a `Result`, e.g. `x()?`, `y!()?`, `{z}?`,
`(w)?`, etc. And binds more tightly than unary operators, e.g. `!x?` is parsed as `!(x?)`.
cc #31436
This PR implements [RFC 1192](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1192-inclusive-ranges.md), which is triple-dot syntax for inclusive range expressions. The new stuff is behind two feature gates (one for the syntax and one for the std::ops types). This replaces the deprecated functionality in std::iter. Along the way I simplified the desugaring for all ranges.
This is my first contribution to rust which changes more than one character outside of a test or comment, so please review carefully! Some of the individual commit messages have more of my notes. Also thanks for putting up with my dumb questions in #rust-internals.
- For implementing `std::ops::RangeInclusive`, I took @Stebalien's suggestion from https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1192#issuecomment-137864421. It seemed to me to make the implementation easier and increase type safety. If that stands, the RFC should be amended to avoid confusion.
- I also kind of like @glaebhoerl's [idea](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1254#issuecomment-147815299), which is unified inclusive/exclusive range syntax something like `x>..=y`. We can experiment with this while everything is behind a feature gate.
- There are a couple of FIXMEs left (see the last commit). I didn't know what to do about `RangeArgument` and I haven't added `Index` impls yet. Those should be discussed/finished before merging.
cc @Gankro since you [complained](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3xkfro/what_happened_to_inclusive_ranges/cy5j0yq)
cc #27777#30877rust-lang/rust#1192rust-lang/rfcs#1254
relevant to #28237 (tracking issue)
This PR allows using methods from traits that are visible but are defined in an inaccessible module (fixes#18241). For example,
```rust
mod foo {
pub use foo::bar::Tr;
mod bar { // This module is inaccessible from `g`
pub trait Tr { fn f(&self) {} }
}
}
fn g<T: foo::Tr>(t: T) {
t.f(); // Currently, this is a privacy error even though `foo::Tr` is visible
}
```
After this PR, it will continue to be a privacy error to use a method from a trait that is not visible. This can happen when a public trait inherits from a private trait (in violation of the `public_in_private` lint) -- see @petrochenkov's example in #28504.
r? @nikomatsakis
Now that 767d85061a is upstream, the relevant deadlocking issue which prompted our downgrade has been resolved. As a result, there's no known issue to *not* upgrade! This also re-enables jemalloc for the pc-windows-gnu target as known issues with that have also been fixed.
Closes#31030
Right now there's just a smattering of `// ignore-foo` platforms which is ever
expanding as new ones are added. Instead switch to only running these tests on
Linux/OSX and then use a guaranteed-to-work but not-as-well-tested alternative
on other platforms.
This PR changes the search paths for macro-expanded non-inline modules so that they match ordinary non-inline modules (fixes#31624). This is a [breaking-change].
Right now, the search paths for a macro-expanded non-inline module are computed as if the module were declared in the top level of the file in which the macro was defined.
For example, consider `./foo/mod.rs`:
```rust
mod inconsequential { // moving the macro outside this module wouldn't change anything
macro_rules! mod_decl {
($i:ident) => { mod $i; }
}
}
```
and `./lib.rs`:
```rust
mod foo;
mod bar {
mod_decl!(baz);
//^ Now, rustc expects `./foo/baz.rs` (or `./foo/baz/mod.rs`)
//| After this PR, rustc will expect `./bar/baz.rs` (or `./bar/baz/mod.rs`)
}
```
r? @alexcrichton
This PR extends compiletest to support **test revisions** and with a preliminary **incremental testing harness**. run-pass, compile-fail, and run-fail tests may be tagged with
```
// revisions: a b c d
```
This will cause the test to be re-run four times with `--cfg {a,b,c,d}` in turn. This means you can write very closely related things using `cfg`. You can also configure the headers/expected-errors by writing `//[foo] header: value` or `//[foo]~ ERROR bar`, where `foo` is the name of your revision. See the changes to `coherence-cow.rs` as a proof of concept.
The main point of this work is to support the incremental testing harness. This PR contains an initial, unused version. The code that uses it will land later. The incremental testing harness compiles each revision in turn, and requires that the revisions have particular names (e.g., `rpass2`, `cfail3`), which tell it whether a particular revision is expected to compile or not.
Two questions:
- Is there compiletest documentation anywhere I can update?
- Should I hold off on landing the incremental testing harness until I have the code to exercise it? (That will come in a separate PR, still fixing a few details)
r? @alexcrichton
cc @rust-lang/compiler <-- new testing capabilities
This PR privacy checks paths as they are resolved instead of in `librustc_privacy` (fixes#12334 and fixes#31779). This removes the need for the `LastPrivate` system introduced in PR #9735, the limitations of which cause #31779.
This PR also reports privacy violations in paths to intra- and inter-crate items the same way -- it always reports the first inaccessible segment of the path.
Since it fixes#31779, this is a [breaking-change]. For example, the following code would break:
```rust
mod foo {
pub use foo::bar::S;
mod bar { // `bar` should be private to `foo`
pub struct S;
}
}
impl foo::S {
fn f() {}
}
fn main() {
foo::bar::S::f(); // This is now a privacy error
}
```
r? @alexcrichton
These types were already `!Sync`, but this improves error messages when they are used in contexts that require `Sync`, aligning them with conventions used with `Rc`, among others.
r? @alexcrichton
These types were already `!Sync`, but this improves error messages when
they are used in contexts that require `Sync`, aligning them with
conventions used with `Rc`, among others.
Zeroing on-drop seems to work fine. Still thinking about the best way to approach zeroing on-move.
(based on top of the other drop PR; only the last 2 commits are relevant)
This applies the same fix as added in 595d5b2f which is to just compile all
valgrind tests statically instead of dynamically. It looks like this is a
resurgence of either #30383 or #31328 in some weird fashion.
I'm not actually sure what's going on with the bots, and it's unclear whether
this is a valgrind bug or a libstd bug, but for now let's just get things
landing again.
Closes#30383
This commit is the result of the FCPs ending for the 1.8 release cycle for both
the libs and the lang suteams. The full list of changes are:
Stabilized
* `braced_empty_structs`
* `augmented_assignments`
* `str::encode_utf16` - renamed from `utf16_units`
* `str::EncodeUtf16` - renamed from `Utf16Units`
* `Ref::map`
* `RefMut::map`
* `ptr::drop_in_place`
* `time::Instant`
* `time::SystemTime`
* `{Instant,SystemTime}::now`
* `{Instant,SystemTime}::duration_since` - renamed from `duration_from_earlier`
* `{Instant,SystemTime}::elapsed`
* Various `Add`/`Sub` impls for `Time` and `SystemTime`
* `SystemTimeError`
* `SystemTimeError::duration`
* Various impls for `SystemTimeError`
* `UNIX_EPOCH`
* `ops::{Add,Sub,Mul,Div,Rem,BitAnd,BitOr,BitXor,Shl,Shr}Assign`
Deprecated
* Scoped TLS (the `scoped_thread_local!` macro)
* `Ref::filter_map`
* `RefMut::filter_map`
* `RwLockReadGuard::map`
* `RwLockWriteGuard::map`
* `Condvar::wait_timeout_with`
Closes#27714Closes#27715Closes#27746Closes#27748Closes#27908Closes#29866
Since the desugaring removed special handling for ranges, the error
message changed and so I had to adjust `range-1`.
Turns out there was a bug where borrowck was too restrictive in some
rare cases of constructing ranges from literals. The `range-2` test
enshrined this bug -- now it's adjusted to test a case that's actually
wrong.
Mostly copy the tests from half-open ranges, adding some more for
DoubleEndedIterator and ExactSizeIterator.
Also thoroughly (I think) test that the feature gates are working.
For summary descriptions we need the first paragraph (adjacent lines
until a blank line) - but the rendered markdown of a code block did not
leave a blank line in the html and was thus included in the summary line.
