r? @nikomatsakis In #6319, several people mentioned they ran into a "computing
fictitious type" ICE in trans. This turns out to be because some
of my recent changes to typeck::check::_match resulted in type errors
getting reported with ty_err as the expected type, which meant the errors
were suppressed, and typechecking incorrectly succeeded (since the errors
weren't recorded).
Changed the error messages in these cases not to use an expected type at all,
rather, printing out a string describing the type that was expected (which is
what the code originally did). The result is a bit repetitive and the
proliferation of error-reporting functions in typeck::infer is a bit annoying,
but I thought it was important to fix this now; more cleanup can happen later.
In #6319, several people mentioned they ran into a "computing
fictitious type" ICE in trans. This turns out to be because some
of my recent changes to typeck::check::_match resulted in type errors
getting reported with ty_err as the expected type, which meant the errors
were suppressed, and typechecking incorrectly succeeded (since the errors
weren't recorded).
Changed the error messages in these cases not to use an expected type at all,
rather, printing out a string describing the type that was expected (which is
what the code originally did). The result is a bit repetitive and the
proliferation of error-reporting functions in typeck::infer is a bit annoying,
but I thought it was important to fix this now; more cleanup can happen later.
Fixes#6378
Don't pass the binary name to the LLVMRustExecuteJIT closure, otherwise it will leak memory; the binary name doesn't seem to be needed, anyhow.
**Caveat**: With the current commit, this check only works for `match`s, the checks (incorrectly) do not run for patterns in `let`s, and invalid/unsafe code compiles.
I don't know how to fix this, I experimented with some things to try to make let patterns and match patterns run on the same code (since this would presumably fix many of the other unsoundness issues of let-patterns, e.g. #6225), but I don't understand enough of the code. (I think I heard someone talking about a fix for `let` being in progress?)
Fixes#6344 and #6341.
This allows macros to create tests and benchmarks.
This is possibly unsound (I've got no idea, but it seemed to work), and being able to programmatically generate benchmarks to compare several implementations of similar algorithms is nice.
This fixes the issue described in #4202.
From what I understood of the code, when we reexport a trait in a submodule using e.g. "pub use foo::SomeTrait", we were not previously making an effort to reexport the static methods on that trait.
I'm new to the Rust code base (and the Rust language itself) so my approach may not be kosher, but this patch works by changing the encoder to include the static methods associated with traits.
I couldn't see any tests for this area of the code, so I didn't really have any examples to go by. If tests are needed, I'm happy to work through that if I can get some assistance to do so.
There may be a more efficient implementation of `core::util::swap_ptr`. The issue mentioned using `move_val_init`, but I couldn't figure out what that did, so I just used `copy_memory` a few times instead.
I'm not exactly the best at reading LLVM generated by rust, but this does appear to be optimized away just as expected (when possible).
Closes#6183.
The first commit changes the compiler's method of treating a `for` loop, and all the remaining commits are just dealing with the fallout.
The biggest fallout was the `IterBytes` trait, although it's really a whole lot nicer now because all of the `iter_bytes_XX` methods are just and-ed together. Sadly there was a huge amount of stuff that's `cfg(stage0)` gated, but whoever lands the next snapshot is going to have a lot of fun deleting all this code!
bors