Rollup of 15 pull requests #80276
Closed
Rollup of 15 pull requests #80276
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
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
This uses the `SourceMap::doctest_offset_line` method to re-map line numbers from doctests. Remapping columns is not yet done. Part of issue rust-lang#79417.
Edit punctuation in doc comment for rustc_middle::lint::LintSource::CommandLine.
Expand abbreviations for "incremental compliation". Also added the word "to" to the description of CacheEncoder.
Each label needs to be separated by a comma (see the ICE issue template for an example of correct usage).
It doesn't add anything since every topic in `t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts` is about prioritization. And it makes it harder to see the issue title, which is what the topic is actually about.
Ran the tidy check Following the diagnostic guide better Diagnostic generation is now relegated to its own function in the diagnostics module. Added tests Fixed the ui test
…nts-lint, r=varkor Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint As discussed in rust-lang#65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way. r? `@varkor` `@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
…=Amanieu Deprecate atomic compare_and_swap method Finish implementing [RFC 1443](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1443-extended-compare-and-swap.md) (rust-lang/rfcs#1443). It was decided to deprecate `compare_and_swap` [back in Rust 1.12 already](rust-lang#31767 (comment)). I can't find any info about that decision being reverted. My understanding is just that it has been forgotten. If there has been a decision on keeping `compare_and_swap` then it's hard to find, and even if this PR does not go through it can act as a place where people can find out about the decision being reverted. Atomic operations are hard to understand, very hard. And it does not help that there are multiple similar methods to do compare and swap with. They are so similar that for a reader it might be hard to understand the difference. This PR aims to make that simpler by finally deprecating `compare_and_swap` which is essentially just a more limited version of `compare_exchange`. The documentation is also updated (according to the RFC text) to explain the differences a bit better. Even if we decide to not deprecate `compare_and_swap`. I still think the documentation for the atomic operations should be improved to better describe their differences and similarities. And the documentation can be written nicer than the PR currently proposes, but I wanted to start somewhere. Most of it is just copied from the RFC. The documentation for `compare_exchange` and `compare_exchange_weak` indeed describe how they work! The problem is that they are more complex and harder to understand than `compare_and_swap`. So for someone who does not fully grasp this they might fall back to using `compare_and_swap`. Making the documentation outline the similarities and differences might build a bridge for people so they can cross over to the more powerful and sometimes more efficient operations. The conversions I do to avoid the `std` internal deprecation errors are very straight forward `compare_and_swap -> compare_exchange` changes where the orderings are just using the mapping in the new documentation. Only in one place did I use `compare_exchange_weak`. This can probably be improved further. But the goal here was not for those operations to be perfect. Just to not get worse and to allow the deprecation to happen.
Added [T; N]::zip() This is my first PR to rust so I hope I have done everything right, or at least close :) --- This is PR adds the array method `[T; N]::zip()` which, in my mind, is a natural extension to rust-lang#75212. My implementation of `zip()` is mostly just a modified copy-paste of `map()`. Should I keep the comments? Also am I right in assuming there should be no way for the `for`-loop to panic, thus no need for the dropguard seen in the `map()`-function? The doc comment is in a similar way a slightly modified copy paste of [`Iterator::zip()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.zip) `@jplatte` mentioned in [rust-lang#75490](rust-lang#75490 (comment)) `zip_with()`, > zip and zip_with seem like they would be useful :) is this something I should add (assuming there is interest for this PR at all :))
…Swatinem Remap instrument-coverage line numbers in doctests This uses the `SourceMap::doctest_offset_line` method to re-map line numbers from doctests. Remapping columns is not yet done, and rustdoc still does not output the correct filename when running doctests in a workspace. Part of rust-lang#79417 although I dont consider that fixed until both filenames and columns are mapped correctly. r? `@richkadel` I might jump on zulip the comming days. Still need to figure out how to properly write tests for this, and deal with other doctest issues in the meantime.
Implemented a compiler diagnostic for move async mistake Fixes rust-lang#79694 First time contributing, so I hope I'm doing everything right. (If not, please correct me!) This code performs a check when a move capture clause is parsed. The check is to detect if the user has reversed the async move keywords and to provide a diagnostic with a suggestion to fix it. Checked code: ```rust fn main() { move async { }; } ``` Previous output: ```txt PS C:\Repos\move_async_test> cargo build Compiling move_async_test v0.1.0 (C:\Repos\move_async_test) error: expected one of `|` or `||`, found keyword `async` --> src\main.rs:2:10 | 2 | move async { }; | ^^^^^ expected one of `|` or `||` error: aborting due to previous error error: could not compile `move_async_test` ``` New output: ```txt PS C:\Repos\move_async_test> cargo +dev build Compiling move_async_test v0.1.0 (C:\Repos\move_async_test) error: the order of `move` and `async` is incorrect --> src\main.rs:2:13 | 2 | let _ = move async { }; | ^^^^^^^^^^ | help: try switching the order | 2 | let _ = async move { }; | ^^^^^^^^^^ error: aborting due to previous error error: could not compile `move_async_test` ``` Is there a file/module where these kind of things are tested? Would love some feedback 😄
… r=oli-obk Edit rustc_middle::lint::LintSource docs Edit punctuation in doc comment for [rustc_middle::lint::LintSource::CommandLine](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/lint/enum.LintSource.html#variant.CommandLine).
…k, r=varkor docs: Edit rustc_middle::ty::query::on_disk_cache Expand abbreviations for "incremental compliation". Also added the word "to" to the description of CacheEncoder.
…ewjasper Reserve necessary space for params in generics_of Always reserve space for the exact number of generic parameters we need in generics_of. As far as I can see, the default is 0/4 elements based on has_self, and the vector grows on after that.
…ls, r=m-ou-se Fix labels for 'Library Tracking Issue' template Each label needs to be separated by a comma (see the ICE issue template for an example of correct usage). r? `@m-ou-se`
…d-workspace-core-documentation, r=jyn514 Fix rustc-std-workspace-core documentation r? `@steveklabnik`
docs: Fix outdated crate reference
Add module-level docs to rustc_middle::ty I thought it would be nice to point out `Ty` and `TyCtxt` on the module page, and link out to the [rustc-dev-guide chapter](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/ty.html).
Fix typo Fix typo in rustc_middle::ty::inhabitedness::DefIdForest docs.
…ark-Simulacrum Remove `I-prioritize` from Zulip topic It doesn't add anything since every topic in `t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts` is about prioritization. And it makes it harder to see the issue title, which is what the topic is actually about. cc `@rust-lang/wg-prioritization`
Remove redundant test Remove ignored test. This test can also be found at src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/double-anchor.rs and the second version isn't ignored. r? `@jyn514`
|
Are you sure #80208 should be rolled up? #80208 (comment) |
|
(also, remember to |
|
Closing - this includes #80208 and I don't want it rolled up. |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
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:
overlapping_patternslint #78242 (Renameoverlapping_patternslint)I-prioritizefrom Zulip topic #80248 (RemoveI-prioritizefrom Zulip topic)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup