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

Move RBE to stable #636

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Aug 17, 2015
Merged

Move RBE to stable #636

merged 4 commits into from Aug 17, 2015

Conversation

steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

This commit moves everything to stable Rust.

In it, we lose a few things:

  • FnBox examples
  • Associated Constants
  • Benchmark tests
  • PathExt stuff
  • SIMD
  • Inline Assembly

These are varying degrees of unfortunate. A better build system
might be able to do nightly vs stable builds for the relevant bits
in the future.

@rust-highfive
Copy link

@steveklabnik: no appropriate reviewer found, use r? to override

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

/cc @mdinger , what do you think about this?

@steveklabnik steveklabnik self-assigned this Aug 17, 2015
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ impl Example {
None => 1,
Some(ref children) => 1 + children.iter()
.map(|c| c.count())
.sum::<usize>(),
.fold(0, |sum, i| sum + i),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That didn't occur to me. Glad you thought of it.

@mdinger
Copy link
Contributor

mdinger commented Aug 17, 2015

Missed the changes to structure.json. That's what those weird error messages are. It won't build without them.

This commit moves everything to stable Rust.

In it, we lose a few things:

* FnBox examples
* Associated Constants
* Benchmark tests
* PathExt stuff
* SIMD
* Inline Assembly

These are varying degrees of unfortunate. A better build system
might be able to do nightly vs stable builds for the relevant bits
in the future.
@@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ The valid types for returns are slightly different than before:

* `Fn`: normal
* `FnMut`: normal
* `FnBox`: equivalent to `FnOnce` but specialized for this application
because `FnOnce` currently(version 1.1.0) interacts badly with the type system.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You still may want to comment on it though. People will probably expect the FnOnce analog and so might just think it missing is an omission.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@mdinger
Copy link
Contributor

mdinger commented Aug 17, 2015

Aside from that, I'm pretty okay with this. I would think the biggest loss here is losing slice patterns which are useful to know about (I was certain step_by() was used somewhere but I can't find it anywhere...so I guess I was mistaken). SIMD is being changed through that new RFC. bench and unsafe have better explanations in other locations such as the book and the rustonomicon.

This seems fine to me.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

@mdinger cool, glad we're on the same page.

@mdinger
Copy link
Contributor

mdinger commented Aug 17, 2015

Nice. +1 from me.

steveklabnik added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2015
@steveklabnik steveklabnik merged commit a1a2b11 into rust-lang:master Aug 17, 2015
@steveklabnik steveklabnik deleted the stabilize branch August 17, 2015 23:22
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

🎊

Nice work @steveklabnik!

@sinistersnare
Copy link

Can we add a section of RBE: "Unstable of Rust", and recreate these sections?

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

@sinistersnare not without significant work on the build process.

@mdinger
Copy link
Contributor

mdinger commented Aug 18, 2015

Not just the build process. The playpen currently all uses the same environment and would have to be conditionally enabled for just those sections. Currently it doesn't pay attention to which example is being run, just that an example is being run.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

And to be clear, I do want that work to happen at some point. It's just not simple.

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.

None yet

5 participants