Rollup of 6 pull requests #127957
Merged
Rollup of 6 pull requests #127957
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously we would only mention that the item was gated out, and opportunisitically mention the feature flag name when possible. We now point to the place where the item was gated, which can be behind layers of macro indirection, or in different modules.
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:5:5
|
LL | #[cfg(FALSE)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
No need to collect tokens on this recovery path, because the parsed statement isn't even looked at.
Use a parameter to decide whether to force collect, as is done for the closely related `parse_local_mk` method.
Instead of a `bool`. Because `ForceCollect` is used in this way everywhere else.
There are three places where we currently check `force_collect` and call `collect_tokens_no_attrs` for `ForceCollect::Yes` and a vanilla parsing function for `ForceCollect::No`. But we can instead just pass in `force_collect` and let `collect_tokens_trailing_token` do the appropriate thing.
Parser: Suggest Placing the Return Type After Function Parameters Fixes rust-lang#126311 This PR suggests placing the return type after the function parameters when it's misplaced after a `where` clause. This also tangentially improves diagnostics for cases like [this](https://github.com/veera-sivarajan/rust/blob/86d6f1312a77997ef994240e716288d61a343a6d/tests/ui/parser/issues/misplaced-return-type-without-where-issue-126311.rs#L1C1-L1C28) and adds doc comments for `parser::AllowPlus`.
Rewrite and rename `issue-22131` and `issue-26006` `run-make` tests to rmake Part of rust-lang#121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html). Please try: try-job: x86_64-msvc try-job: i686-mingw
When finding item gated behind a `cfg` flag, point at it
Previously we would only mention that the item was gated out, and opportunisitically mention the feature flag name when possible. We now point to the place where the item was gated, which can be behind layers of macro indirection, or in different modules.
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:5:5
|
LL | #[cfg(FALSE)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
…ents, r=petrochenkov `force_collect` improvements Yet more cleanups relating to `cfg_attr` processing. r? ````@petrochenkov````
…llaumeGomez rustdoc: fix `current` class on sidebar modnav | Before | After | | -- | -- | |  | 
…orino Don't allow unsafe statics outside of extern blocks This PR fixes a regression where we allowed `unsafe static` items in top-level modules (i.e. outside of `unsafe extern` blocks). It's harder IMO to integrate this into the `check_item_safety` function, so I opted to just put this check on the `static` item itself. Beta version of this lives at rust-lang#127944. r? ```@oli-obk``` or ```@spastorino```
rustbot
added
A-run-make
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=6 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 11e57241f1 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
This was referenced Jul 19, 2024
|
Finished benchmarking commit (3811f40): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 769.908s -> 769.053s (-0.11%) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
issue-22131andissue-26006run-maketests to rmake #127621 (Rewrite and renameissue-22131andissue-26006run-maketests to rmake)cfgflag, point at it #127662 (When finding item gated behind acfgflag, point at it)force_collectimprovements #127903 (force_collectimprovements)currentclass on sidebar modnav #127932 (rustdoc: fixcurrentclass on sidebar modnav)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup