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 6 pull requests #97662

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

notriddle and others added 13 commits April 23, 2022 11:54
…signals, r=yaahc

std: `<ExitStatus as Display>::fmt` name the signal it died from

Related to rust-lang#95601
…=GuillaumeGomez

rustdoc: Add more test coverage

Related issue rust-lang#91113
…ding-where-clauses, r=lcnr

Fix wrong suggestion for adding where clauses

closes rust-lang#97576
don't use a `span_note` for ignored impls

Searching for the `derive` isn't too difficult as it's right above the field definition.

By using a span these errors are a lot more verbose than they should be, which is especially annoying as one can end up with a lot of `dead_code` warnings.
…n-docs, r=thomcc

Improve documentation for constructors of pinned `Box`es

Adds a cross-references between `Box::pin` and `Box::into_pin` (and other related methods, i.e. the equivalent `From` implementation, and the unstable `pin_in` method), in particular now that `into_pin` [was stabilized](rust-lang#97397). The main goal is to further improve visibility of the fact that `Box<T> -> Pin<Box<T>>` conversion exits in the first place, and that `Box::pin(x)` is – essentially – just a convenience function for `Box::into_pin(Box::new(x))`

The motivating context why I think this is important is even experienced Rust users overlooking the existence this kind of conversion, [e.g. in this thread on IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-function-variants/16732/7?u=steffahn); and also the fact that that discussion brought up that there would be a bunch of Box-construction methods "missing" such as e.g. methods with fallible allocation a la "`Box::try_pin`", and similar; while those are in fact *not* necessary, because you can use `Box::into_pin(Box::try_new(x)?)` instead.

I have *not* included explicit mention of methods (e.g. `try_new`) in the docs of stable methods (e.g. `into_pin`). (Referring to unstable API in stable API docs would be bad style IMO.) Stable examples I have in mind with the statement "constructing a (pinned) Box in a different way than with `Box::new`" are things like cloning a `Box`, or `Box::from_raw`. If/when `try_new` would get stabilized, it would become a very good concrete example use-case of `Box::into_pin` IMO.
@rustbot rustbot added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jun 2, 2022
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=6

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2022

📌 Commit 3a68052 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

@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 2, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 3a68052 with merge 54f6305f73391d0b283ac51e9bb91eeea8829d21...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 2, 2022

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jun 2, 2022
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job dist-mips64-linux failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
[RUSTC-TIMING] core test:false 24.706
[RUSTC-TIMING] addr2line test:false 0.529
[RUSTC-TIMING] gimli test:false 5.858
[RUSTC-TIMING] object test:false 5.890
error[E0531]: cannot find unit struct, unit variant or constant `SIGSTKFLT` in crate `libc`
    |
    |
736 |         libc::SIGSTKFLT => " (SIGSTKFLT)",
    |               ^^^^^^^^^ help: a constant with a similar name exists: `SIGSTKSZ`
   ::: /cargo/registry/src/git.luolix.top-1ecc6299db9ec823/libc-0.2.126/src/unix/linux_like/linux/gnu/b64/mips64/mod.rs:817:1
    |
    |
817 | pub const SIGSTKSZ: ::size_t = 8192;
    | ------------------------------------ similarly named constant `SIGSTKSZ` defined here
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0531`.
[RUSTC-TIMING] std test:false 2.995
error: could not compile `std` due to previous error
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:06:40

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants