- use `symlink_file` and `symlink_dir` instead of the old `soft_link`
- create a junction instead of a directory symlink for testing recursive_rmdir (as it causes the
same troubles, but can be created by users without `SeCreateSymbolicLinkPrivilege`)
- `remove_dir_all` was unable to remove directory symlinks and junctions
- only run tests that create symlinks if we have the right permissions.
- rename `Path2` to `Path`
- remove the global `#[allow(deprecated)]` and outdated comments
- After factoring out `create_junction()` from the test `directory_junctions_are_directories` and
removing needlessly complex code, what I was left with was:
```
#[test]
#[cfg(windows)]
fn directory_junctions_are_directories() {
use sys::fs::create_junction;
let tmpdir = tmpdir();
let foo = tmpdir.join("foo");
let bar = tmpdir.join("bar");
fs::create_dir(&foo).unwrap();
check!(create_junction(&foo, &bar));
assert!(bar.metadata().unwrap().is_dir());
}
```
It test whether a junction is a directory instead of a reparse point. But it actually test the
target of the junction (which is a directory if it exists) instead of the junction itself, which
should always be a symlink. So this test is invalid, and I expect it only exists because the
author was suprised by it. So I removed it.
Some things that do not yet work right:
- relative symlinks do not accept forward slashes
- the conversion of paths for `create_junction` is hacky
- `remove_dir_all` now messes with the internal data of `FileAttr` to be able to remove symlinks.
We should add some method like `is_symlink_dir()` to it, so code outside the standard library
can see the difference between file and directory symlinks too.
I have it set as stable right now under the rationale that it's extending an existing, stable API to another type in the "obvious" way.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @reem
After the truly incredible and embarrassing mess I managed to make in my last pull request, this should be a bit less messy.
Fixes#31267 - with this change, the code mentioned in the issue compiles.
Found and fixed another issue as well - constants of zero-size types, when used in ExprRepeats inside associated constants, were causing the compiler to crash at the same place as #31267. An example of this:
```
struct Bar;
const BAZ: Bar = Bar;
struct Foo([Bar; 1]);
struct Biz;
impl Biz {
const BAZ: Foo = Foo([BAZ; 1]);
}
fn main() {
let foo = Biz::BAZ;
println!("{:?}", foo);
}
```
However, I'm fairly certain that my fix for this is not as elegant as it could be. The problem seems to occur only with an associated constant of a tuple struct containing a fixed size array which is initialized using a repeat expression, and when the element to be repeated provided to the repeat expression is another constant which is of a zero-sized type. The fix works by looking for constants and associated constants which are zero-width and consequently contain no data, but for which rustc is still attempting to emit an LLVM value; it simply stops rustc from attempting to emit anything. By my logic, this should work fine since the only values that are emitted in this case (according to the comments) are for closures with side effects, and constants will never have side effects, so it's fine to simply get rid of them. It fixes the error and things compile fine with it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be done in a far better manner.
r? @nikomatsakis
Rust currently emits atomic loads and stores with the LLVM `volatile` qualifier. This is unnecessary and prevents LLVM from performing optimization on these atomic operations.
This pull request adds support for [Illumos](http://illumos.org/)-based operating systems: SmartOS, OpenIndiana, and others. For now it's x86-64 only, as I'm not sure if 32-bit installations are widespread. This PR is based on #28589 by @potatosalad, and also closes#21000, #25845, and #25846.
Required changes in libc are already merged: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/libc/pull/138
Here's a snapshot required to build a stage0 compiler:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nbaksalyar/rustc-sunos-snapshot.tar.gz
It passes all checks from `make check`.
There are some changes I'm not quite sure about, e.g. macro usage in `src/libstd/num/f64.rs` and `DirEntry` structure in `src/libstd/sys/unix/fs.rs`, so any comments on how to rewrite it better would be greatly appreciated.
Also, LLVM configure script might need to be patched to build it successfully, or a pre-built libLLVM should be used. Some details can be found here: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25409
Thanks!
r? @brson
This is very useful when the RwLock is synchronizing access to a data
structure and you would like to return or store guards which contain
references to data inside the data structure instead of the data structure
itself.
WIP implementation of #31209.
The goal is to insert fake/dummy definitions for names that we failed to import so that later resolver stages won't complain about them.
Something went haywire with github last night and the old PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/31230 got closed somehow. This new PR is to replace the old one. This incorporates all of the feedback from the other PR.
@alexcrichton I incorporated the suggestion from @semarie and the result is cleaner and clearer. I think this is ready to go.
This mirrors the behavior of `clang-cl.exe` by adding a `CodeView` global
variable when emitting debug information. This should in turn help stack traces
that are generated when code is compiled with debuginfo enabled.
Closes#28133
This is a behavior that some find confusing, so it deserves its own example.
Fixes#31318
I think this wording might be a bit strange, but I couldn't come up with anything better. Feedback very welcome.
Fixes#31098
AFAICT this is the only place where rustdoc explicitly checks if we are on stable before emitting content, so I can't tell if this is the sane way to handle this, or if anything else should be done to make sure that nobody forgets to remove this check when `const` is stabilized.
Any documentation comments that contain raw-string-looking sequences may pretty-print invalid code when expanding them, as the current logic always uses the `r"literal"` form, without appending any `#`s.
This commit calculates the minimum number of `#`s required to wrap a comment correctly and appends `#`s appropriately.
Fixes#27489.
Guillaume Gomez