According to a recent [discussion on IRC](https://botbot.me/mozilla/rust-tools/2015-10-27/?msg=52887517&page=2), there's no good reason for Windows builds to store target libraries under `bin`, when on every other platform they are under `lib`.
This might be a [breaking-change] for some users. I am pretty sure VisualRust has that path hard-coded somewhere.
r? @brson
The public set is expanded with trait items, impls and their items, foreign items, exported macros, variant fields, i.e. all the missing parts. Now it's a subset of the exported set.
This is needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/29083 because stability annotation pass uses the public set and all things listed above need to be annotated.
Rustdoc can now be migrated to the public set as well, I guess.
Exported set is now slightly more correct with regard to exported items in blocks - 1) blocks in foreign items are considered and 2) publicity is not inherited from the block's parent - if a function is public it doesn't mean structures defined in its body are public.
r? @alexcrichton or maybe someone else
Almost all operations on Path are based on the components iterator in one form
or another to handle equivalent paths. The `Hash` implementations, however,
mistakenly just went straight to the underlying `OsStr`, causing these
equivalent paths to not get merged together.
This commit updates the `Hash` implementation to also be based on the iterator
which should ensure that if two paths are equal they hash to the same thing.
cc #29008, but doesn't close it
Almost all operations on Path are based on the components iterator in one form
or another to handle equivalent paths. The `Hash` implementations, however,
mistakenly just went straight to the underlying `OsStr`, causing these
equivalent paths to not get merged together.
This commit updates the `Hash` implementation to also be based on the iterator
which should ensure that if two paths are equal they hash to the same thing.
cc #29008, but doesn't close it
I read this section a few times before even having a guess what
was meant, then consulted IRC for confirmation. It may be that I
was thick-headed, but I think this is a useful addition.
I read this section a few times before even having a guess what
was meant, then consulted IRC for confirmation. It may be that I
was thick-headed, but I think this is a useful addition.
Note: for now, this change only affects `-windows-gnu` builds.
So why was this `libgcc` dylib dependency needed in the first place?
The stack unwinder needs to know about locations of unwind tables of all the modules loaded in the current process. The easiest portable way of achieving this is to have each module register itself with the unwinder when loaded into the process. All modules compiled by GCC do this by calling the __register_frame_info() in their startup code (that's `crtbegin.o` and `crtend.o`, which are automatically linked into any gcc output).
Another important piece is that there should be only one copy of the unwinder (and thus unwind tables registry) in the process. This pretty much means that the unwinder must be in a shared library (unless everything is statically linked).
Now, Rust compiler tries very hard to make sure that any given Rust crate appears in the final output just once. So if we link the unwinder statically to one of Rust's crates, everything should be fine.
Unfortunately, GCC startup objects are built under assumption that `libgcc` is the one true place for the unwind info registry, so I couldn't find any better way than to replace them. So out go `crtbegin`/`crtend`, in come `rsbegin`/`rsend`!
A side benefit of this change is that rustc is now more in control of the command line that goes to the linker, so we could stop using `gcc` as the linker driver and just invoke `ld` directly.
Motivation:
- It is not actually a pattern
- It is not actually needed, except for...
Drawback:
- Slice patterns like `[a, _.., b]` are pretty-printed as `[a, .., b]`. Great loss :(
plugin-[breaking-change], as always
Similarly to the simd intrinsics. I believe this is a better solution than #29288, and I could implement it as well for overflowing_add/sub/mul. Also rename from udiv/sdiv to div, and same for rem.
These two commits do a few things:
1. reformat to 80 cols
2. use the reference-style links where appropriate for improved in-source readability
3. adds a few links, tweaks a couple of words, `3` -> `three`, stuff like that
While the diff is big due to these edits, there's no significant content change.
r? @brson
Before this patch `reserve` function allocated twice as requested
amount elements (not twice as capacity). It leaded to unnecessary
excessive memory usage in scenarios like this:
```
let mut v = Vec::new();
v.push(17);
v.extend(0..10);
println!("{}", v.capacity());
```
`Vec` allocated 22 elements, while it could allocate just 11.
`reserve` function must have a property of keeping `push` operation
cost (which calls `reserve`) `O(1)`. To achieve this `reserve` must
exponentialy grow its capacity when it does reallocation.
There's better strategy to implement `reserve`:
```
let new_capacity = max(current_capacity * 2, requested_capacity);
```
This strategy still guarantees that capacity grows at `O(1)` with
`reserve`, and fixes the issue with `extend`.
Patch imlpements this strategy.
Before this patch `reserve` function allocated twice as requested
amount elements (not twice as capacity). It leaded to unnecessary
excessive memory usage in scenarios like this:
```
let mut v = Vec::new();
v.push(17);
v.extend(0..10);
println!("{}", v.capacity());
```
`Vec` allocated 22 elements, while it could allocate just 11.
`reserve` function must have a property of keeping `push` operation
cost (which calls `reserve`) `O(1)`. To achieve this `reserve` must
exponentialy grow its capacity when it does reallocation.
There's better strategy to implement `reserve`:
```
let new_capacity = max(current_capacity * 2, requested_capacity);
```
This strategy still guarantees that capacity grows at `O(1)` with
`reserve`, and fixes the issue with `extend`.
Patch imlpements this strategy.
