I cannot tell whether the original comment was unsure about the
arithmetic calculations, or if it was unsure about the assumptions
being made about the alignment of the current allocation pointer.
The arithmetic calculation looks fine to me, though. This technique
is documented e.g. in Henry Warren's "Hacker's Delight" (section 3-1).
(I am sure one can find it elsewhere too, its not an obscure
property.)
I added a test case which does not compile today, and required changes on
privacy's side of things to get right. Additionally, this moves a good bit of
logic which did not belong in reachability into privacy.
All of reachability should solely be responsible for determining what the
reachable surface area of a crate is given the exported surface area (where the
exported surface area is that which is usable by external crates).
Privacy will now correctly figure out what's exported by deeply looking
through reexports. Previously if a module were reexported under another name,
nothing in the module would actually get exported in the executable. I also
consolidated the phases of privacy to be clearer about what's an input to what.
The privacy checking pass no longer uses the notion of an "all public" path, and
the embargo visitor is no longer an input to the checking pass.
Currently the embargo visitor is built as a saturating analysis because it's
unknown what portions of the AST are going to get re-exported.
This also cracks down on exported methods from impl blocks and trait blocks. If you implement a private trait, none of the symbols are exported, and if you have an impl for a private type none of the symbols are exported either. On the other hand, if you implement a public trait for a private type, the symbols are still exported. I'm unclear on whether this last part is correct, but librustc will fail to link unless it's in place.
I added a test case which does not compile today, and required changes on
privacy's side of things to get right. Additionally, this moves a good bit of
logic which did not belong in reachability into privacy.
All of reachability should solely be responsible for determining what the
reachable surface area of a crate is given the exported surface area (where the
exported surface area is that which is usable by external crates).
Privacy will now correctly figure out what's exported by deeply looking
through reexports. Previously if a module were reexported under another name,
nothing in the module would actually get exported in the executable. I also
consolidated the phases of privacy to be clearer about what's an input to what.
The privacy checking pass no longer uses the notion of an "all public" path, and
the embargo visitor is no longer an input to the checking pass.
Currently the embargo visitor is built as a saturating analysis because it's
unknown what portions of the AST are going to get re-exported.
I cannot tell whether the original comment was unsure about the
arithmetic calculations, or if it was unsure about the assumptions
being made about the alignment of the current allocation pointer.
The arithmetic calculation looks fine to me, though. This technique
is documented e.g. in Henry Warren's "Hacker's Delight" (section 3-1).
(I am sure one can find it elsewhere too, its not an obscure
property.)
New benchmark tests in vec.rs:
`push`, `starts_with_same_vector`, `starts_with_single_element`,
`starts_with_diff_one_element_end`, `ends_with_same_vector`,
`ends_with_single_element`, `ends_with_diff_one_element_beginning` and
`contains_last_element`
This replaces the old section on managed pointers because the syntax is
going to be removed and it's currently feature gated so the examples
don't work out-of-the-box. Dynamic mutability coverage can be added
after the `Mut<T>` work has landed.
This replaces the old section on managed pointers because the syntax is
going to be removed and it's currently feature gated so the examples
don't work out-of-the-box. Dynamic mutability coverage can be added
after the `Mut<T>` work has landed.
This isn't very useful yet, but it does replace most functionality of `@T`. The `Mut<T>` type will make it unnecessary to have a `GcMut<T>` so I haven't included one. Obviously it doesn't work for trait objects but that needs to be figured out for `Rc<T>` too.
bors
Corey Richardson
Luqman Aden
Steven Fackler
Huon Wilson
Alex Crichton
Felix S. Klock II
Daniel Micay
g3xzh
Ziad Hatahet
Seo Sanghyeon
Isaac Dupree
klutzy