I don't know how one would write a separate test for this sort of thing. Building the compiler, and `make check` worked, which should mean I didn't screw anything.
This adds #[inline] to many very common string routines (e.g. `len`).
It also rewrites `repeat` to not use `+=` and make it O(n) rather than O(n^2), and also concat/connect(_slices) to reduce the overhead of reallocations, and constantly `set_len`ing (etc) in `push_str`. (The added complexity might not be worth the 20% speedup though.)
This has happened to two people trying to get Rust working on other platforms. Since it won't compile either way, make a nicer message for it (which will also point them straight to the correct file).
I have noticed these comments scattered across the codebase. They appear to be vestigial Emacs formatting settings and they don't appear in newer files. For the sake of consistency it's probably best to remove them.
this could probably use expansion - it just uses all of the default
options, which is usually what we want, but not always. maybe add a
separate function that takes more options?
only tested on linux/x86_64, but i got the values for other platforms
from their system header files.
no bindings for win32, because win32 doesn't include glob.h.
also, glob() takes a callback for error handling, but i'm just making
this a *c_void for now, since i don't know how to represent c calling
back into rust (if that's even currently possible).
I've added trt_field_vtable, trt_field_box, and trt_field_tydesc, and
inserted them in place of the "magic numbers" used to access trait
object fields through GEPi().
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.
