This change registers new snapshots, allowing `*T` to be removed from the language. This is a large breaking change, and it is recommended that if compiler errors are seen that any FFI calls are audited to determine whether they should be actually taking `*mut T`.
I believe that #5781 got fixed by the DST work. It duplicated the
variance inference work in #12828. Therefore, all that is left in #5781
is adding a test.
Closes#5781.
r? @huonw
This can break code that looked like:
impl Foo for Box<Any> {
fn f(&self) { ... }
}
let x: Box<Any + Send> = ...;
x.f();
Change such code to:
impl Foo for Box<Any> {
fn f(&self) { ... }
}
let x: Box<Any> = ...;
x.f();
That is, upcast before calling methods.
This is a conservative solution to #5781. A more proper treatment (see
the xfail'd `trait-contravariant-self.rs`) would take variance into
account. This change fixes the soundness hole.
Some library changes had to be made to make this work. In particular,
`Box<Any>` is no longer showable, and only `Box<Any+Send>` is showable.
Eventually, this restriction can be lifted; for now, it does not prove
too onerous, because `Any` is only used for propagating the result of
task failure.
This patch also adds a test for the variance inference work in #12828,
which accidentally landed as part of DST.
Closes#5781.
[breaking-change]
This PR includes two big things and a bunch of little ones.
1) It enables hygiene for variables bound by 'match' expressions.
2) It fixes a bug discovered indirectly (#15221), wherein fold traversal failed to visit nonterminal nodes.
3) It fixes a small bug in the macro tutorial.
It also adds tests for the first two, and makes a bunch of small comment improvements and cleanup.
... and possibly totally pointless. Specifically, fixing
these to make their macros hygienic may mean that they no
longer test the thing that they were supposed to test.
rustc: update the unnecessary parens lint for struct literals.
Things like `match X { x: 1 } { ... }` now need to be written with
parentheses, so the lint should avoid warning in cases like that.
This diff will look better once bors takes care of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15183
@brson and I talked about it, and, if I commit this skeleton, I can submit PRs for each portion, without doing this silly "builds on previous PRs" stuff, and it shouldn't cause conflicts.
This lays out what I think the guide should cover, and in what order. I haven't picked a cohesive project yet that shows all this off, but I think this progression of concepts is appropriate.
We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.
Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.
This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.
Closes#14036.
[breaking-change]
r? @alexcrichton
Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.
This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.
A better solution would be to add higher-rank lifetime support to procs.
However, this would be a lot of work for a feature we want to remove in
favor of unboxed closures. The corresponding "real fix" is #15067.
Closes#14036.
[breaking-change]
We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.
Signed-off-by: OGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>
Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.
Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.
Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.
smenardpw
bors
Alex Crichton
Patrick Walton
Tobias Bucher
Piotr Jawniak
John Clements
Luqman Aden
Steve Klabnik
Huon Wilson
OGINO Masanori