Closes#3083.
This takes a similar approach to #5797 where a set is present on the `tcx` of used mutable definitions. Everything is by default warned about, and analyses must explicitly add mutable definitions to this set so they're not warned about.
Most of this was pretty straightforward, although there was one caveat that I ran into when implementing it. Apparently when the old modes are used (or maybe `legacy_modes`, I'm not sure) some different code paths are taken to cause spurious warnings to be issued which shouldn't be issued. I'm not really sure how modes even worked, so I was having a lot of trouble tracking this down. I figured that because they're a legacy thing that I'd just de-mode the compiler so that the warnings wouldn't be a problem anymore (or at least for the compiler).
Other than that, the entire compiler compiles without warnings of unused mutable variables. To prevent bad warnings, #5965 should be landed (which in turn is waiting on #5963) before landing this. I figured I'd stick it out for review anyway though.
This renaming, proposed in the [Numeric Bikeshed](https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Bikeshed-Numeric-Traits#rename-modulo-into-rem-or-remainder-in-traits-and-docs), will allow us to implement div and and modulo methods that follow the conventional mathematical definitions for negative numbers without altering the definitions of the operators (and confusing systems programmers). Here is a useful answer on StackOverflow that explains the difference between `div`/`mod` and `quot`/`rem` in Haskell: (When is the difference between quotRem and divMod useful?)[http://stackoverflow.com/a/339823/679485].
This is part of the numeric trait reforms tracked in issue #4819.
This adds debugging symbol generation for boxes, bare functions, vectors, and strings, along with a tests for boxes and vectors.
Note that gdb will see them as their actual compiled representation with the refcount, tydesc, etc. fields, so if `b` refers to box, `b->boxed` will refer to its value. Also, since you seem to use the [C struct hack](http://c-faq.com/struct/structhack.html) for dynamic vectors, you won't be able to print out the whole vector at once, only one element at a time by indexing specific elements.
r? @nikomatsakis
This doesn't completely fix the x86 ABI for structs, but it does fix some cases. On linux, structs appear to be returned correctly now. On windows, structs are only returned by pointer when they are greater than 8 bytes. That scenario works now.
In the case where the struct is less than 8 bytes our generated code looks peculiar. When returning a pair of u16, C packs both variables into %eax to return them. Our generated code though expects to find one of the pair in %ax and the other in %dx. Similar for u8. I haven't looked into it yet.
There appears to also be struct passing problems on linux, where my `extern-pass-TwoU8s` and `extern-pass-TwoU16s` tests are failing.
This Adds a bunch of tests for passing and returning structs
of various sizes to C. It fixes the struct return rules on unix,
and on windows for structs of size > 8 bytes. Struct passing
on unix for structs under a certain size appears to still be broken.
Closes#5487, #1913, and #4568
I tracked this by adding all used unsafe blocks/functions to a set on the `tcx` passed around, and then when the lint pass comes around if an unsafe block/function isn't listed in that set, it's unused.
I also removed everything from the compiler that was unused, and up to stage2 is now compiling without any known unused unsafe blocks.
I chose `unused_unsafe` as the name of the lint attribute, but there may be a better name...
This takes care of one of the last remnants of assumptions about enum layout. A type visitor is now passed a function to read a value's discriminant, then accesses fields by being passed a byte offset for each one. The latter may not be fully general, despite the constraints imposed on representations by borrowed pointers, but works for any representations currently planned and is relatively simple.
Closes#5652.
Update an old test to pass. I'm not 100% sure what the intent of the test was, but it's hard to see how I could have corrupted the intent of the test from the tiny changes I made.
