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 10 pull requests #87569

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Jul 29, 2021
Merged

Rollup of 10 pull requests #87569

merged 29 commits into from
Jul 29, 2021

Conversation

JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

jonhoo and others added 29 commits March 28, 2021 12:37
The `Unpin` bound was originally added in rust-lang#56939 following the
recommendation of @withoutboats in
rust-lang#55766 (comment)

That comment does not give explicit justification for why the bound
should be added. The relevant context was:

> [ ] Remove `impl<P> Unpin for Pin<P>`
>
> This impl is not justified by our standard justification for unpin
> impls: there is no pointer direction between `Pin<P>` and `P`. Its
> usefulness is covered by the impls for pointers themselves.
>
> This futures impl (link to the impl changed in this PR) will need to
> change to add a `P: Unpin` bound.

The decision to remove the unconditional impl of `Unpin for Pin` is
sound (these days there is just an auto-impl for when `P: Unpin`). But,
I think the decision to also add the `Unpin` bound for `impl Future` may
have been unnecessary. Or if that's not the case, I'd be very interested
to have the argument for why written down somewhere. The bound _appears_
to not be needed, since the presence of a `Pin<P>` should indicate that
it's safe to project to `Pin<&mut P::Target>` just like for
`Pin::as_mut`.
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
Add `mkdir` to `create_dir`, `rmdir` to `remove_dir`.
…=m-ou-se

Stabilize core::task::ready!

_Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70922_

This PR stabilizes the `task::ready!` macro. Similar to rust-lang#80886, this PR was waiting on rust-lang#74355 to be fixed.

The `task::ready!` API has existed in the futures ecosystem for several years, and was added on nightly last year in rust-lang#70817. The motivation for this macro is the same as it was back then: virtually every single manual future implementation makes use of this; so much so that it's one of the few things included in the [futures-core](https://docs.rs/futures-core/0.3.12/futures_core) library.

r? ``@tmandry``

cc/ ``@rust-lang/wg-async-foundations`` ``@rust-lang/libs``

## Example
```rust
use core::task::{Context, Poll};
use core::future::Future;
use core::pin::Pin;

async fn get_num() -> usize {
    42
}

pub fn do_poll(cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<()> {
    let mut f = get_num();
    let f = unsafe { Pin::new_unchecked(&mut f) };

    let num = ready!(f.poll(cx));
    // ... use num

    Poll::Ready(())
}
```
… r=m-ou-se

Remove P: Unpin bound on impl Future for Pin

We can safely produce a `Pin<&mut P::Target>` without moving out of the `Pin` by using `Pin::as_mut` directly.

The `Unpin` bound was originally added in rust-lang#56939 following the recommendation of ``@withoutboats`` in rust-lang#55766 (comment)

That comment does not give explicit justification for why the bound should be added. The relevant context was:

> [ ] Remove `impl<P> Unpin for Pin<P>`
>
> This impl is not justified by our standard justification for unpin impls: there is no pointer direction between `Pin<P>` and `P`. Its usefulness is covered by the impls for pointers themselves.
>
> This futures impl (link to the impl changed in this PR) will need to change to add a `P: Unpin` bound.

The decision to remove the unconditional impl of `Unpin for Pin` is sound (these days there is just an auto-impl for when `P: Unpin`). But, I think the decision to also add the `Unpin` bound for `impl Future` may have been unnecessary. Or if that's not the case, I'd be very interested to have the argument for why written down somewhere. The bound _appears_ to not be needed, as demonstrated by the change requiring no unsafe code and by the existence of `Pin::as_mut`.
Add doc aliases to fs.rs

Add aliases for create_dir, create_dir_all, remove_dir, remove_dir_all
…oc, r=jyn514

Add support for tuple struct field documentation

Fixes  rust-lang#42615.
This is rust-lang#80320 updated to new codebase and with added tests.
Part of rust-lang#83255.

cc ```@camelid``` (since you were involved on the original PR).
r? ```@jyn514```
…rk-Simulacrum

Integrate context into the memorial to Anna

This came up after I reviewed rust-lang#87298, but I didn't propose this in time before that PR was merged.

If y'all feel this is too much churn on the file, no worries, feel free to close, but I felt this was a more fitting integration of the memorial into the test suite.

CC ``@boringcactus.``
…oli-obk

Don't run MIR unsafeck at all when using `-Zthir-unsafeck`

I don't know how I missed this :D
r? ``@oli-obk``
…r=Mark-Simulacrum

Add `CI_ONLY_WHEN_CHANNEL` and run `x86_64-gnu-stable` only on nightly

Backporting a commit made on rust-lang#87508. cc ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
Use backticks when referring to `core::future::Ready` in panic message
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Jul 28, 2021
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=10 rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 28, 2021

📌 Commit 6c4888a has been approved by JohnTitor

@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 Jul 28, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 28, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 6c4888a with merge 4533be9...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: JohnTitor
Pushing 4533be9 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 29, 2021
@bors bors merged commit 4533be9 into rust-lang:master Jul 29, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.56.0 milestone Jul 29, 2021
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

📣 Toolstate changed by #87569!

Tested on commit 4533be9.
Direct link to PR: #87569

🎉 rls on windows: test-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok).

rust-highfive added a commit to rust-lang-nursery/rust-toolstate that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021
Tested on commit rust-lang/rust@4533be9.
Direct link to PR: <rust-lang/rust#87569>

🎉 rls on windows: test-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok).
@JohnTitor JohnTitor deleted the rollup-7ydfetw branch July 29, 2021 07:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. rollup A PR which is a rollup 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.