The drop block has been deprecated for quite some time. This patch series removes support for parsing it and all the related machinery that made drop work.
As a side feature of all this, I also added the ability to annote fields in structs. This allows comments to be properly associated with an individual field. However, I didn't update `rustdoc` to integrate these comment blocks into the documentation it generates.
After much discussion on IRC and #4819, we have decided to revert to the old naming of the `/` operator. This does not change its behavior. In making this change, we also have had to rename some of the methods in the `Integer` trait. Here is a list of the methods that have changed:
- `Quot::quot` -> `Div::div`
- `Rem::rem` - stays the same
- `Integer::quot_rem` -> `Integer::div_rem`
- `Integer::div` -> `Integer::div_floor`
- `Integer::modulo` -> `Integer::mod_floor`
- `Integer::div_mod` -> `Integer::div_mod_floor`
r? @brson or @thestinger : Added a change_dir_locked function to os, and use it in the
mkdir_recursive tests so that the tests don't clobber each other's
directory changes.
Adds two extra flags: `--linker` which takes extra flags to pass to the linker, can be used multiple times and `--print-link-args` which prints out linker arguments. Currently `--print-link-args` needs execution to get past translation to get the `LinkMeta` data.
I haven't done tests or updated any extra documentation yet, so this pull request is currently here for review.
Cases like `Either<@int,()>` have a null case with at most one value but
a nonzero number of fields; if we misreport this, then bad things can
happen inside of, for example, pattern matching.
Closes#6117.
The test is reduced from a doc test, but making it separate ensures that
(1) unrelated changes to the docs won't leave this case uncovered, and
(2) the nature of any future failures will be more obvious to whoever
sees the tree on fire as a result.
Cases like `Either<@int,()>` have a null case with at most one value but
a nonzero number of fields; if we misreport this, then bad things can
happen inside of, for example, pattern matching.
Closes#6117.
First, it refers to a feature (trait bounds on type parameters) that's
apparently no longer in the language. Second, if I understand the issue
correctly, it should never have been a "run-pass" test because it was
supposed to fail.
