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

Rollup of 8 pull requests #73895

Closed
wants to merge 20 commits into from

Conversation

Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

TyPR124 and others added 20 commits June 26, 2020 00:37
They are gated by internal feature gate const_likely
This commit applies the existing 'extra angle bracket recovery' logic
when parsing fields in struct definitions. This allows us to continue
parsing the struct's fields, avoiding spurious 'missing field' errors in
code that tries to use the struct.
Co-authored-by: Oliver Scherer <github35764891676564198441@oli-obk.de>
Use back-ticks instead of quotation marks in docs for the block comment
variant of TokenKind.
Also adds back-ticks when referring to the contents of this collection.
…LukasKalbertodt

Remap Windows ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER to ErrorKind::InvalidInput from Other

I don't know if this is acceptable or how likely it is to break existing code, but it seem to me ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER "The parameter is incorrect" should map to ErrorKind::InvalidInput "A parameter was incorrect". Previously this value fell through to ErrorKind::Other.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I instinctively thought it would be InvalidInput.
Make `likely` and `unlikely` const, gated by feature `const_unlikely`

This PR also contains a fix to allow `#[allow_internal_unstable]` to work properly with `#[rustc_const_unstable]`.

cc @RalfJung @nagisa

r? @oli-obk
…ery, r=matthewjasper

Recover extra trailing angle brackets in struct definition

This commit applies the existing 'extra angle bracket recovery' logic
when parsing fields in struct definitions. This allows us to continue
parsing the struct's fields, avoiding spurious 'missing field' errors in
code that tries to use the struct.
…bank

Fix wording for anonymous parameter name help

```
 --> exercises/functions/functions2.rs:8:15
  |
8 | fn call_me(num) {
  |               ^ expected one of `:`, `@`, or `|`
  |
  = note: anonymous parameters are removed in the 2018 edition (see RFC 1685)
help: if this is a `self` type, give it a parameter name
  |
8 | fn call_me(self: num) {
  |            ^^^^^^^^^
help: if this was a parameter name, give it a type
  |
8 | fn call_me(num: TypeName) {
  |            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: if this is a type, explicitly ignore the parameter name
  |
8 | fn call_me(_: num) {
  |
```
This commit changes "if this was a parameter name" to "if this is a parameter name" to match the wording of similar errors.
…r=jonas-schievink

Fix markdown rendering in librustc_lexer docs

Use back-ticks instead of quotation marks in docs for the block comment variant of TokenKind.

## [Before](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lexer/enum.TokenKind.html#variant.BlockComment) and after

<img width="1103" alt="Screen Shot 2020-06-28 at 1 22 30 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/19642016/85957562-446a8380-b943-11ea-913a-442cf7744083.png">

<img width="1015" alt="Screen Shot 2020-06-28 at 1 28 29 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/19642016/85957566-4af8fb00-b943-11ea-8fef-a09c1d586772.png">

## Question

For visual consistency, should we use back-ticks throughout the docs for these enum variants?
…jonas-schievink

Add newline to rustc MultiSpan docs

Also adds back-ticks when referring to the contents of this collection.
Fix Zulip topic format

Yet another instance of me making a mistake after copy-pasting :D
r? @Dylan-DPC
…r=jonas-schievink

Advertise correct stable version for const control flow

rust-lang#72437 was opened before the 1.45 release but merged afterwards. These will be stable in 1.46.
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link
Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=8

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 30, 2020

📌 Commit 5f80061 has been approved by Dylan-DPC

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jun 30, 2020
@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Made a larger rollup that includes track_caller

#73896

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.