These commits fix bugs related to identically named statics in functions of implementations in various situations. The commit messages have most of the information about what bugs are being fixed and why.
As a bonus, while I was messing around with name mangling, I improved the backtraces we'll get in gdb by removing `__extensions__` for the trait/type being implemented and by adding the method name as well. Yay!
Remove __extensions__ from method symbols as well as the meth_XXX. The XXX is
now used to append a few characters at the end of the name of the symbol.
Closes#6602
This is currently unsound since `bool` is represented as `i8`. It will
become sound when `bool` is stored as `i8` but always used as `i1`.
However, the current behaviour will always be identical to `x & 1 != 0`,
so there's no need for it. It's also surprising, since `x != 0` is the
expected behaviour.
Closes#7311
Current access methods are nestable and unsafe. This patch renames
current methods implementation - prepends unsafe_ - and implements 2 new
methods that are both safe and un-nestable.
Fixes#7473
There are 6 new compiler recognised attributes: deprecated, experimental,
unstable, stable, frozen, locked (these levels are taken directly from
Node's "stability index"[1]). These indicate the stability of the
item to which they are attached; e.g. `#[deprecated] fn foo() { .. }`
says that `foo` is deprecated.
This comes with 3 lints for the first 3 levels (with matching names) that
will detect the use of items marked with them (the `unstable` lint
includes items with no stability attribute). The attributes can be given
a short text note that will be displayed by the lint. An example:
#[warn(unstable)]; // `allow` by default
#[deprecated="use `bar`"]
fn foo() { }
#[stable]
fn bar() { }
fn baz() { }
fn main() {
foo(); // "warning: use of deprecated item: use `bar`"
bar(); // all fine
baz(); // "warning: use of unmarked item"
}
The lints currently only check the "edges" of the AST: i.e. functions,
methods[2], structs and enum variants. Any stability attributes on modules,
enums, traits and impls are not checked.
[1]: http://nodejs.org/api/documentation.html
[2]: the method check is currently incorrect and doesn't work.
I've added a test for the second example mentioned in #5239. The first example does not compile with a reasonable error message. Should I add a compile-fail test for that example as well?
/rust/src/test/run-pass/issue-5239.rs:15:45: 15:51 error: binary operation + cannot be applied to type `&int`
rust/src/test/run-pass/issue-5239.rs:15 let _f = |ref x: int| { x += 1};
^~~~~~
error: aborting due to previous error
This removes the stacking of type parameters that occurs when invoking
trait methods, and fixes all places in the standard library that were
relying on it. It is somewhat awkward in places; I think we'll probably
want something like the `Foo::<for T>::new()` syntax.
Fixes for #8625 to prevent assigning to `&mut` in borrowed or aliasable locations. The old code was insufficient in that it failed to catch bizarre cases like `& &mut &mut`.
r? @pnkfelix
This is a pull request for #2275
I've created a small python script to generate test files for a list of keywords (as break do else enum extern false fn for if impl let loop match mod mut priv pub ref return self static struct super true trait type unsafe use while), but I'm not really sure where to put it. I've added the created files as well.
I did not use
fn main() {
let $KW = "foo"; //~ error
println($KW); //~ error
}
as template, because for return, self, ref, loop, mut and break this does not raise an error in the ```println``` line, only in the ```let``` line.
For #7083.
The metadata issue with the old version is now fixed. Ready for review.
This is also not the full solution to #7083, because this is not supported yet:
```
trait Foo : Send { }
impl <T: Send> Foo for T { }
fn foo<T: Foo>(val: T, chan: std::comm::Chan<T>) {
chan.send(val);
}
```
cc @nikomatsakis
When using a `do` block to call an internal iterator, if you forgot to
return a value from the body, it would tell you
error: Do-block body must return bool, but returns () here. Perhaps
you meant to write a `for`-loop?
This advice no longer applies as `for` loops are now for external
iterators. Delete this message outright and let it use the default error
message
error: mismatched types: expected `bool` but found `()`
r? @thestinger
