Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Gate unsigned unary negate #23945

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Apr 2, 2015
Merged

Gate unsigned unary negate #23945

merged 9 commits into from
Apr 2, 2015

Conversation

pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

@pnkfelix pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

Feature-gate unsigned unary negate.

Discussed in weekly meeting here: https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/weekly-meetings/2015-03-31.md#feature-gate--expr

and also in the internals thread here: http://internals.rust-lang.org/t/forbid-unsigned-integer/752

Also, one might rightfully point out that this is fallout from rust-lang/rfcs#560 , which has tracking issue #22020

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @aturon

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

r? @nikomatsakis

bootstraps

(and I'm running make check locally now.)

Obviously in need of a rebase too, though.

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned nikomatsakis and unassigned aturon Apr 1, 2015
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

(also I forgot to remove the Neg impl for unsigned types, as discussed in the internals thread. I'll do that too.)

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

r+ if we remove the impl

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

Removed the Neg impls and rebased, but still need to run make check locally now ... :(

@alexcrichton what is our rollup schedule? I.e. what is expected deadline for beta, has it passed?

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

We should be able to land everything so long as it's in the queue in the next 3.5 hours (and maybe even slightly after!)

Namely, the special case treatment for `div`/`rem` is only applicable
to signed integer values.

Clearly RFC 1027 would have saved us here!  ;)
@pnkfelix pnkfelix added this to the 1.0 beta milestone Apr 1, 2015
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

(adding to 1.0 beta milestone so that it does not get forgotten by accident. Though it may well get discarded by choice, if this local bootstrap does not get finished soon... how on earth is the compiler so slow for me ...)

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

@alexcrichton reports that this commit alexcrichton@6fe1233 gets him through make check; I am trying to cherry-pick that to my own repo now; will push in a minute...

Conflicts:
	src/libcore/num/mod.rs
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 2, 2015

r=nikomatsakis f86318d

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r=nikomatsakis f86318d

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge 207bb63...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge 9e5b5bd...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge cccfe38...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge 35b0653...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge 4ae7033...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge 299333b...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f86318d with merge ce5c99a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt

@bors bors merged commit f86318d into rust-lang:master Apr 2, 2015
andersk added a commit to andersk/image-rs that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2015
As per rust-lang/rust#23945, Neg is no longer
implemented for unsigned types.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
andersk added a commit to andersk/image-rs that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2015
As per rust-lang/rust#23945, Neg is no longer
implemented for unsigned types.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
andersk added a commit to andersk/nalgebra-rs that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2015
As per rust-lang/rust#23945, Neg is no longer
implemented for unsigned types.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
cuviper added a commit to cuviper/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 14, 2020
It's been gone since rust-lang#23945, before Rust 1.0. The former wrapping
semantics have also been available as inherent methods for a long time
now. There's no reason to keep this unused macro around.
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 14, 2020
…crum

Remove the last remnant of unsigned Neg

It's been gone since rust-lang#23945, before Rust 1.0. The former wrapping
semantics have also been available as inherent methods for a long time
now. There's no reason to keep this unused macro around.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants