This commit rewrites crate loading internally in attempt to look at less
metadata and provide nicer errors. The loading is now split up into a few
stages:
1. Collect a mapping of (hash => ~[Path]) for a set of candidate libraries for a
given search. The hash is the hash in the filename and the Path is the
location of the library in question. All candidates are filtered based on
their prefix/suffix (dylib/rlib appropriate) and then the hash/version are
split up and are compared (if necessary).
This means that if you're looking for an exact hash of library you don't have
to open up the metadata of all libraries named the same, but also in your
path.
2. Once this mapping is constructed, each (hash, ~[Path]) pair is filtered down
to just a Path. This is necessary because the same rlib could show up twice
in the path in multiple locations. Right now the filenames are based on just
the crate id, so this could be indicative of multiple version of a crate
during one crate_id lifetime in the path. If multiple duplicate crates are
found, an error is generated.
3. Now that we have a mapping of (hash => Path), we error on multiple versions
saying that multiple versions were found. Only if there's one (hash => Path)
pair do we actually return that Path and its metadata.
With this restructuring, it restructures code so errors which were assertions
previously are now first-class errors. Additionally, this should read much less
metadata with lots of crates of the same name or same version in a path.
Closes#11908
The new methodology can be found in the re-worded comment, but the gist of it is
that -C prefer-dynamic doesn't turn off static linkage. The error messages
should also be a little more sane now.
Closes#12133
Externally loaded libraries are able to do things that cause references
to them to survive past the expansion phase (e.g. creating @-box cycles,
launching a task or storing something in task local data). As such, the
library has to stay loaded for the lifetime of the process.
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
This was the original intention of the privacy of structs, and it was
erroneously implemented before. A pub struct will now have default-pub fields,
and a non-pub struct will have default-priv fields. This essentially brings
struct fields in line with enum variants in terms of inheriting visibility.
As usual, extraneous modifiers to visibility are disallowed depend on the case
that you're dealing with.
Closes#11522
Now that procedural macros can be implemented outside of the compiler,
it's more important to have a reasonable API to work with. Here are the
basic changes:
* Rename SyntaxExpanderTTTrait to MacroExpander, SyntaxExpanderTT to
BasicMacroExpander, etc. I think "procedural macro" is the right
term for these now, right? The other option would be SynExtExpander
or something like that.
* Stop passing the SyntaxContext to extensions. This was only ever used
by macro_rules, which doesn't even use it anymore. I can't think of
a context in which an external extension would need it, and removal
allows the API to be significantly simpler - no more
SyntaxExpanderTTItemExpanderWithoutContext wrappers to worry about.
The new macro loading infrastructure needs the ability to force a
procedural-macro crate to be built with the host architecture rather than the
target architecture (because the compiler is just about to dlopen it).
The `print!` and `println!` macros are now the preferred method of printing, and so there is no reason to export the `stdio` functions in the prelude. The functions have also been replaced by their macro counterparts in the tutorial and other documentation so that newcomers don't get confused about what they should be using.
The comments have more information as to why this is done, but the basic idea is
that finding an exported trait is actually a fairly difficult problem. The true
answer lies in whether a trait is ever referenced from another exported method,
and right now this kind of analysis doesn't exist, so the conservative answer of
"yes" is always returned to answer whether a trait is exported.
Closes#11224Closes#11225
This replaces the link meta attributes with a pkgid attribute and uses a hash
of this as the crate hash. This makes the crate hash computable by things
other than the Rust compiler. It also switches the hash function ot SHA1 since
that is much more likely to be available in shell, Python, etc than SipHash.
Fixes#10188, #8523.
In this series of commits, I've implemented static linking for rust. The scheme I implemented was the same as my [mailing list post](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-November/006686.html).
The commits have more details to the nitty gritty of what went on. I've rebased this on top of my native mutex pull request (#10479), but I imagine that it will land before this lands, I just wanted to pre-emptively get all the rebase conflicts out of the way (becuase this is reorganizing building librustrt as well).
Some contentious points I want to make sure are all good:
* I've added more "compiler chooses a default" behavior than I would like, I want to make sure that this is all very clearly outlined in the code, and if not I would like to remove behavior or make it clearer.
* I want to make sure that the new "fancy suite" tests are ok (using make/python instead of another rust crate)
If we do indeed pursue this, I would be more than willing to write up a document describing how linking in rust works. I believe that this behavior should be very understandable, and the compiler should never hinder someone just because linking is a little fuzzy.
This commit alters the build process of the compiler to build a static
librustrt.a instead of a dynamic version. This means that we can stop
distributing librustrt as well as default linking against it in the compiler.
This also means that if you attempt to build rust code without libstd, it will
no longer work if there are any landing pads in play. The reason for this is
that LLVM and rustc will emit calls to the various upcalls in librustrt used to
manage exception handling. In theory we could split librustrt into librustrt and
librustupcall. We would then distribute librustupcall and link to it for all
programs using landing pads, but I would rather see just one librustrt artifact
and simplify the build process.
The major benefit of doing this is that building a static rust library for use
in embedded situations all of a sudden just became a whole lot more feasible.
Closes#3361
