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

Rolling up PRs in the queue #23963

Merged
merged 85 commits into from
Apr 2, 2015
Merged

Rolling up PRs in the queue #23963

merged 85 commits into from
Apr 2, 2015

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

michaelwoerister and others added 30 commits March 5, 2015 13:57
The requirement `T: Send + Sync` only matters if the `Arc` crosses
thread boundaries, and that is adequately controlled by the impls of
`Send`/`Sync` for `Arc` itself. If `T` doesn't satisfy the bounds, then
the `Arc` cannot cross thread boundaries and so everything is still
safe (`Arc` just acts like an expensive `Rc`).
The requirements `T: Send` and `T: Send + Sync` for `Mutex` and `RwLock`
respectively only matter if those types are shared/sent across thread
boundaries, and that is adequately controlled by the impls of
`Send`/`Sync` for them. If `T` doesn't satisfy the bounds, then
the types cannot cross thread boundaries and so everything is still
safe (the two types just act like an expensive `RefCell`).
The requirements `T: Send` only matter if the channel crosses thread
boundaries i.e. the `Sender` or `Reciever` are sent across thread
boundaries, and which is adequately controlled by the impls of `Send`
for them. If `T` doesn't satisfy the bounds, then the types cannot cross
thread boundaries and so everything is still safe (the pair of types
collectively behave like a `Rc<RefCell<VecDeque>>`, or something of that
nature).
reallocation strategy since extend() calls reserve() and/or
push() for us.
… and onto the

`UnificationTable`, and renaming/collapsing some methods.
trait matching more tailored. We now detect recursion where the
obligations "match" -- meaning basically that they are the same for some
substitution of any unbound type variables.
F`, so that if we have `x: &mut FnMut()`, then `x()` is translated to
`FnMut::call_mut(&mut *x, ())` rather than `&mut x`. The latter would
require `mut x: &mut FnMut()`, which is really a lot of mut. (Actually,
the `mut` is normally required except for the special case of a `&mut F`
reference, because that's the one case where we distinguish a unique
path like `x` from a mutable path.)
Fix example and some text for: `read_line` takes `&mut String` and return `Result` instead `IoResult`.
local only if matches `FUNDAMENTAL(LocalType)`, where `FUNDAMENTAL`
includes `&T` and types marked as fundamental (which includes `Box`).
Also apply these tests to negative reasoning.
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r+ force

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:26 PM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: 💔] Test failed - auto-win-64-nopt-t
http://buildbot.rust-lang.org/builders/auto-win-64-nopt-t/builds/2808


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#23963 (comment).

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit 3555765 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 3555765 with merge 0d35fa1...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-win-64-nopt-t

@alexcrichton alexcrichton force-pushed the rollup branch 2 times, most recently from 5f78fe5 to 2df76a5 Compare April 2, 2015 05:58
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r+ force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit 2df76a5 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 2df76a5 with merge 02aef18...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-win-64-nopt-t

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r+ force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit 557bad8 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 557bad8 with merge cb407be...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-win-64-nopt-t

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r+ force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit e3b7e6c has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit e3b7e6c with merge cf00fc4...

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.