typeck: Make sure casts from other types to fat pointers are illegal
Fixes ICEs where non-fat pointers and scalars are cast to fat pointers,
Fixes#21397Fixes#22955Fixes#23237Fixes#24100
Adds an `attrs` field to `FieldInfo` which lets one check the attributes on
a field whilst expanding.
This lets deriving plugins be more robust, for example providing the ability to
"ignore" a field for the purpose of deriving, or perhaps handle the field a
different way.
r? @huonw
collections: Implement String::drain(range) according to RFC 574
`.drain(range)` is unstable and under feature(collections_drain).
This adds a safe way to remove any range of a String as efficiently as
possible.
As noted in the code, this drain iterator has none of the memory safety
issues of the vector version.
RFC tracking issue is #23055
`.drain(range)` is unstable and under feature(collections_drain).
This adds a safe way to remove any range of a String as efficiently as
possible.
As noted in the code, this drain iterator has none of the memory safety
issues of the vector version.
RFC tracking issue is #23055
Hi! While researching stuff for the reference and the grammar, I came across a few mentions of using the `priv` keyword that was removed in 0.11.0 (#13547, #8122, rust-lang/rfcs#26, [RFC 0026](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0026-remove-priv.md)).
One occurrence is a mention in the reference, a few are in comments, and a few are marking test functions. I left the test that makes sure you can't name an ident `priv` since it's still a reserved keyword. I did a little grepping around for `priv `, priv in backticks, `Private` etc and I think the remaining instances are fine, but if anyone knows anywhere in particular I should check for any other lingering mentions of `priv`, please let me know and I would be happy to! 🍂🌊
The new functionality being tested here is that a drop impl bounded by
`UserDefined` does not cause dropck to inject its conservative
constraints on region inference.
I've been working on improving the diagnostic registration system so that it can:
* Check uniqueness of error codes *across the whole compiler*. The current method using `errorck.py` is prone to failure as it relies on simple text search - I found that it breaks when referencing an error's ident within a string (e.g. `"See also E0303"`).
* Provide JSON output of error metadata, to eventually facilitate HTML output, as well as tracking of which errors need descriptions. The current schema is:
```
<error code>: {
"description": <long description>,
"use_site": {
"filename": <filename where error is used>,
"line": <line in file where error is used>
}
}
```
[Here's][metadata-dump] a pretty-printed sample dump for `librustc`.
One thing to note is that I had to move the diagnostics arrays out of the diagnostics modules. I really wanted to be able to capture error usage information, which only becomes available as a crate is compiled. Hence all invocations of `__build_diagnostics_array!` have been moved to the ends of their respective `lib.rs` files. I tried to avoid moving the array by making a plugin that expands to nothing but couldn't invoke it in item position and gave up on hackily generating a fake item. I also briefly considered using a lint, but it seemed like it would impossible to get access to the data stored in the thread-local storage.
The next step will be to generate a web page that lists each error with its rendered description and use site. Simple mapping and filtering of the metadata files also allows us to work out which error numbers are absent, which errors are unused and which need descriptions.
[metadata-dump]: https://gist.github.com/michaelsproul/3246846ff1bea71bd049
This is OK to do given:
- PIE is supported on Android starting with API 16.
- The bots are running API 18.
- API < 16 now has a 12.5% market share[0] as of 2015-04-29.
Closes#17437.
[0] https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
r? @alexcrichton
Add `-g` (to testcase) that I should have included in PR #24932.
Note it is safe, with respect to autobuilds, to land before #24945.
(In other words, landing this sooner won't break things for anyone any
worse than they were already broken, since there are *other* tests
that also add `-g` to their flags via `compile-flags: -g`.)
