As an optimization, once unboxed closures receive their environment by
value if it fits within the size of an `int`. An assert in this code
path assumed that this would only occur if the environment had no more
than a single free variable in it, but multiple smaller free variables
can easily be packed into the space of an `int`, particularly if any
of them are 0-sized. The assert can simply be removed.
Closes#18652
- When selecting an implicit trait impl for an unboxed closure, plumb
through and use the substitutions from impl selection instead of
using those from the current param environment in trans, which may
be incorrect.
- When generating a function declaration for an unboxed closure, plumb
through the substitutions from the param environment of the closure
as above. Also normalize the type to avoid generating duplicate
declarations due to regions being inconsistently replaced with
ReStatic elsewhere.
- Do not place the closure type in the self param space when
translating the unboxed closure callee, etc. It is not actually
used, and doing so conflicts with the self substitution from
default trait methods.
Closes#18661Closes#18685
* `from_str_radix_float` gives incorrect results for negative float strings. Changes the accumulator used to start at -0.0 instead of -1.0.
* Adds missing tests
To make progress on #18585 we're paring down the distribution to theoretically
"only libstd", and this commit makes progress on this by removing the rlibc
crate from the distribution.
The crate has now been moved into an external cargo package located in the rust
lang organization [1]. This is a breaking change due to this removal, and
existing crates depending on `rlibc` should use the Cargo crate instead.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rlibc
[breaking-change]
cc #18585
Right now the windows nightlies are failing because they're encountering a
linker error when producing stage3 libs. The stage3 libs aren't actually used in
general, and we primarily just want to generate a static stage3 binary, not
static stage3 dylibs.
As a new user, I spent a while confused when flycheck told me the code sample I'd typed in was invalid. I ended up figuring out some of what comes after the code sample more painfully by myself because there was no indication that it was broken in the text beforehand. This one line change makes it clear that the code following it is an experiment that may not work rather than something to assume just works.
