Coerce fields to the expected field type
Fully fixes#31260.
This needs a crater run. I was supposed to do this last month but it slipped. Let's get this done.
Add `Iterator::for_each`
This works like a `for` loop in functional style, applying a closure to
every item in the `Iterator`. It doesn't allow `break`/`continue` like
a `for` loop, nor any other control flow outside the closure, but it may
be a more legible style for tying up the end of a long iterator chain.
This was tried before in #14911, but nobody made the case for using it
with longer iterators. There was also `Iterator::advance` at that time
which was more capable than `for_each`, but that no longer exists.
The `itertools` crate has `Itertools::foreach` with the same behavior,
but thankfully the names won't collide. The `rayon` crate also has a
`ParallelIterator::for_each` where simple `for` loops aren't possible.
> I really wish we had `for_each` on seq iterators. Having to use a
> dummy operation is annoying. - [@nikomatsakis][1]
[1]: https://github.com/nikomatsakis/rayon/pull/367#issuecomment-308455185
Rebase LLVM on top of LLVM 4.0.1
Fixes#42893.
Please don't backport this to beta as-is - I'm not sure I want rust-lang/llvm#84 to sneak to beta before it gets sufficient testing.
r? @alexcrichton
Shift mir-dataflow from `rustc_borrowck` to `rustc_mir` crate.
Shift mir-dataflow from `rustc_borrowck` to `rustc_mir` crate.
Turn `elaborate_drops` and `rustc_peek` implementations into MIR passes that also live in `rustc_mir` crate.
Rewire things so `rustc_driver` uses the `ElaborateDrops` from `rustc_mir` crate.
(This PR is another baby step for mir-borrowck; it is a piece of work that other people want to rebase their stuff on top of, namely developers who are doing other dataflow analyses on top of MIR.)
I have deliberately architected this PR in an attempt to minimize the number of actual code changes. The majority of the diff should be little more than changes to mod and use declarations, as well as a few visibility promotions to pub(crate) when a declaration was moved downward in the module hierarchy.
(I have no problem with other PR's that move declarations around to try to clean this up; my goal was to ensure that the diff here was as small as possible, to make the review nearly trivial.)
Unsized tuple coercions
Part of #18469. Fixes#32702.
#37685 and #34451 might also be related.
This PR does the following:
- Introduce explicit `Sized` constraints on tuple initializers, similar to that of record-struct initializers. Not much relevant to the main contribution but I noticed this when making tests for unsized tuple coercions.
- Implement `(.., T): Unsize<(.., U)>` where `T: Unsize<U>`.
- Assume `(.., T)` is MaybeUnsizedUnivariant.
- Modify `src/librustc/ty/util.rs` and `src/librustc_trans/glue.rs` so that tuples and structs are uniformly traversed when translating.
Document that `/` works as separator on Windows
Hi Whenever I see code like `Path::new("./src/bin/main.rs")` or `path.ends_with("foo/bar")`, I wonder if it will work on Windows as I expect. Unfortunately, reading the current docs does not help to answer this question, because all examples are Unix-specific.
However, I believe that using `/` is fine, because both Windows itself [and Rust stdlib](47faf1d519/src/libstd/sys/windows/path.rs (L26)) do treat it as a file separator, and because it is [actually used](abf01e1edd/tests/git.rs (L579)) in Cargo. So looks like we can just document it?
r? @steveklabnik
cc @retep998 I don't actually program for windows that much, so I might be totally wrong, and perhaps we should advise to always use (allocating) `.join` method to construct paths of more than one component?
[libcore/cmp] Expand Ord/PartialOrd Derivable doc for enum types
Expand Derivable docblock section for `Ord` and `PartialOrd` to cover
`enum` types, in addition to the existing language explaining it for
`struct` types.
std: Fix implementation of `Alloc::alloc_one`
This had an accidental `u8 as *mut T` where it was intended to have just a
normal pointer-to-pointer cast.
Closes#42827
Update docs for fmt::write.
#29355
I reworded it slightly to make it more clear that the function only take
two arguments - the output and the Arguments struct that can be
generated from the format_args! macro.
r? @steveklabnik
add `allow_fail` test attribute
This change allows the user to add an `#[allow_fail]` attribute to
tests that will cause the test to compile & run, but if the test fails
it will not cause the entire test run to fail. The test output will
show the failure, but in yellow instead of red, and also indicate that
it was an allowed failure.
Here is an example of the output: http://imgur.com/a/wt7ga
Detect missing `;` on methods with return type `()`
- Point out the origin of a type requirement when it is the return type
of a method
- Point out possibly missing semicolon when the return type is `()` and
the implicit return makes sense as a statement
- Suggest changing the return type of methods with default return type
- Don't suggest changing the return type on `fn main()`
- Don't suggest changing the return type on impl fn
- Suggest removal of semicolon (instead of being help)
Reuse the mem::swap optimizations to speed up slice::rotate
This is most helpful for compound types where LLVM didn't vectorize the loop. Highlight: bench slice::rotate_medium_by727_strings gets 38% faster.
Exposes the swapping logic from PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/40454 as `pub unsafe fn ptr::swap_nonoverlapping` under library feature `swap_nonoverlapping` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42818.
(The new method seemed plausible, and was the simplest way to share the logic. I'm not attached to it, though, so let me know if a different way would be better.)
Turn `elaborate_drops` and `rustc_peek` implementations into MIR
passes that also live in `rustc_mir` crate.
Rewire things so `rustc_driver` uses the `ElaborateDrops` from
`rustc_mir` crate.
re-add the call to `super_statement` in EraseRegions
The move gathering code is sensitive to type-equality - that is rather
un-robust and I plan to fix it eventually, but that's a more invasive
change. And we want to fix the visitor anyway.
Fixes#42903.
r? @eddyb
