When a struct implements Drop, its fields should still drop in
declaration order (just as they do when the struct does not implement
Drop).
Fixes#16492.
When a struct implements Drop, its fields should still drop in
declaration order (just as they do when the struct does not implement
Drop).
Fixes#16492.
These `where` clauses are accepted everywhere generics are currently
accepted and desugar during type collection to the type parameter bounds
we have today.
A new keyword, `where`, has been added. Therefore, this is a breaking
change. Change uses of `where` to other identifiers.
[breaking-change]
r? @nikomatsakis (or whoever)
These `where` clauses are accepted everywhere generics are currently
accepted and desugar during type collection to the type parameter bounds
we have today.
A new keyword, `where`, has been added. Therefore, this is a breaking
change. Change uses of `where` to other identifiers.
[breaking-change]
This patch primarily does two things: (1) it prevents lifetimes from
leaking out of unboxed closures; (2) it allows unboxed closure type
notation, call notation, and construction notation to construct closures
matching any of the three traits.
This breaks code that looked like:
let mut f;
{
let x = &5i;
f = |&mut:| *x + 10;
}
Change this code to avoid having a reference escape. For example:
{
let x = &5i;
let mut f; // <-- move here to avoid dangling reference
f = |&mut:| *x + 10;
}
I believe this is enough to consider unboxed closures essentially
implemented. Further issues (for example, higher-rank lifetimes) should
be filed as followups.
Closes#14449.
[breaking-change]
r? @pnkfelix
This patch primarily does two things: (1) it prevents lifetimes from
leaking out of unboxed closures; (2) it allows unboxed closure type
notation, call notation, and construction notation to construct closures
matching any of the three traits.
This breaks code that looked like:
let mut f;
{
let x = &5i;
f = |&mut:| *x + 10;
}
Change this code to avoid having a reference escape. For example:
{
let x = &5i;
let mut f; // <-- move here to avoid dangling reference
f = |&mut:| *x + 10;
}
I believe this is enough to consider unboxed closures essentially
implemented. Further issues (for example, higher-rank lifetimes) should
be filed as followups.
Closes#14449.
[breaking-change]
by-reference upvars.
This partially implements RFC 38. A snapshot will be needed to turn this
on, because stage0 cannot yet parse the keyword.
Part of #12831.
r? @alexcrichton
by-reference upvars.
This partially implements RFC 38. A snapshot will be needed to turn this
on, because stage0 cannot yet parse the keyword.
Part of #12381.
I chose to make two of them because I wanted something close to an
"end-to-end" test (*), but at the same time I wanted a test that
would run on Windows (**).
(*) The run-make test serves as the end-to-end: It constructs an input
that is trying to subvert the hack and we are going to check that it
fails in the attempt).
(**) The compile-fail-fulldeps test serves as a more narrow test that
will be tested on all platforms. It also attempts to subvert the
hack, testing that when you use `new_parser_from_tts`, the resulting
parser does not support reading embedded Idents.
This fixes borrow checking for closures. Code like this will break:
struct Foo {
x: int,
}
pub fn main() {
let mut this = &mut Foo {
x: 1,
};
let r = || {
let p = &this.x;
&mut this.x;
};
r()
}
Change this code to not take multiple mutable references to the same value. For
example:
struct Foo {
x: int,
}
pub fn main() {
let mut this = &mut Foo {
x: 1,
};
let r = || {
&mut this.x;
};
r()
}
Closes#16361.
[breaking-change]
r? @nikomatsakis
`for` loop heads.
This breaks code like:
let x = Some(box 1i);
for &a in x.iter() {
}
Change this code to obey the borrow checking rules. For example:
let x = Some(box 1i);
for &ref a in x.iter() {
}
Closes#16205.
[breaking-change]
r? @nikomatsakis
`for` loop heads.
This breaks code like:
let x = Some(box 1i);
for &a in x.iter() {
}
Change this code to obey the borrow checking rules. For example:
let x = Some(box 1i);
for &ref a in x.iter() {
}
Closes#16205.
[breaking-change]
Previously the stability lint considered cross-crate items only. That's appropriate for unstable and experimental levels, but not for deprecation.
In addition to changing the lint, this PR takes care of the fallout: a number of deprecated items that were being used throughout libstd.
Closes#16409
Due to deny(deprecated), this is a:
[breaking-change]
This fixes borrow checking for closures. Code like this will break:
struct Foo {
x: int,
}
pub fn main() {
let mut this = &mut Foo {
x: 1,
};
let r = || {
let p = &this.x;
&mut this.x;
};
r()
}
Change this code to not take multiple mutable references to the same value. For
example:
struct Foo {
x: int,
}
pub fn main() {
let mut this = &mut Foo {
x: 1,
};
let r = || {
&mut this.x;
};
r()
}
Closes#16361.
[breaking-change]
Previously the lint considered cross-crate items only. That's
appropriate for unstable and experimental levels, but not for
deprecation.
Closes#16409
Due to deny(deprecation), this is a:
[breaking-change]
There was a bug in both libnative and libuv which prevented child processes from
being spawned correctly on windows when one of the arguments was an empty
string. The libuv bug has since been fixed upstream, and the libnative bug was
fixed as part of this commit.
When updating libuv, this also includes a fix for #15149.
Closes#15149Closes#16272
The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got
a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This
is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the
warnings can be squashed.
Fixes#16192.
The fail macro defines some function/static items internally, which got
a dead_code warning when `fail!()` is used inside a dead function. This
is ugly and unnecessarily reveals implementation details, so the
warnings can be squashed.
Fixes#16192.
This generalises the behaviour with struct fields (which recieve no
dead_code warning if they have a leading _), and other similar lints, to
all items, e.g. `fn _foo() {} fn main() {}` has no warnings.
