Mention "null pointer optimization" in option docs.
I had seen people discuss "null pointer optimization," but when I tried to find official documentation (using Google), the `std::option` page didn't show up, because it doesn't use that term. Hopefully adding the term will help others find it in the future.
Remove toggle for "undocumented items."
Per discussion in #84326. For trait implementations, this was
misleading: the items actually do have documentation (but it comes from
the trait definition).
For both trait implementations and trait implementors, this was
redundant: in both of those cases, the items are default-hidden by
different toggle at the level above.
Update tests: Remove XPath selectors that over-specified on details tag,
in cases that weren't testing toggles. Add an explicit test for toggles
on methods. Rename item-hide-threshold to toggle-item-contents for
consistency.
Demo:
https://hoffman-andrews.com/rust/untoggle-undocumented/std/string/struct.String.htmlhttps://hoffman-andrews.com/rust/untoggle-undocumented/std/io/trait.Read.html
Reduce the amount of untracked state in TyCtxt
Access to untracked global state may generate instances of #84970.
The GlobalCtxt contains the lowered HIR, the resolver outputs and interners.
By wrapping the resolver inside a query, we make sure those accesses are properly tracked.
As a no_hash query, all dependent queries essentially become `eval_always`,
what they should have been from the beginning.
Don't sort a `Vec` before computing its `DepTrackingHash`
Previously, we sorted the vec prior to hashing, making the hash
independent of the original (command-line argument) order. However, the
original vec was still always kept in the original order, so we were
relying on the rest of the compiler always working with it in an
'order-independent' way.
This assumption was not being upheld by the `native_libraries` query -
the order of the entires in its result depends on the order of entries
in `Options.libs`. This lead to an 'unstable fingerprint' ICE when the
`-l` arguments were re-ordered.
This PR removes the sorting logic entirely. Re-ordering command-line
arguments (without adding/removing/changing any arguments) seems like a
really niche use case, and correctly optimizing for it would require
additional work. By always hashing arguments in their original order, we
can entirely avoid a cause of 'unstable fingerprint' errors.
Emit a hard error when a panic occurs during const-eval
Previous, a panic during const evaluation would go through the
`const_err` lint. This PR ensures that such a panic always causes
compilation to fail.
Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local_strict`
Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local_strict` and keeps the behaviour of `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local`, see also #85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far.
My intent is for `is_unicast_link_local`, `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` to have the semantics of checking if an address has Link-Local, Site-Local or Global scope, see also #85696 which changes the behaviour of `is_unicast_global` and renames these methods to `has_unicast_XXX_scope` to reflect this.
For checking Link-Local scope we currently have two methods: `is_unicast_link_local` and `is_unicast_link_local_strict`. This is because of what appears to be conflicting definitions in [IETF RFC 4291](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291).
From [IETF RFC 4291 section 2.4](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.4): "Link-Local unicast" (`FE80::/10`)
```text
Address type Binary prefix IPv6 notation Section
------------ ------------- ------------- -------
Unspecified 00...0 (128 bits) ::/128 2.5.2
Loopback 00...1 (128 bits) ::1/128 2.5.3
Multicast 11111111 FF00::/8 2.7
Link-Local unicast 1111111010 FE80::/10 2.5.6
Global Unicast (everything else)
```
From [IETF RFC 4291 section 2.5.6](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.6): "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" (`FE80::/64`)
```text
| 10 bits | 54 bits | 64 bits |
+----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010| 0 | interface ID |
+----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
```
With `is_unicast_link_local` checking `FE80::/10` and `is_unicast_link_local_strict` checking `FE80::/64`.
There is also [IETF RFC 5156 section 2.4](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5156#section-2.4) which defines "Link-Scoped Unicast" as `FE80::/10`.
It has been pointed out that implementations in other languages and the linux kernel all use `FE80::/10` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76098#issuecomment-706916840, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76098#issuecomment-705928605).
Given all of this I believe the correct interpretation to be the following: All addresses in `FE80::/10` are defined as having Link-Local scope, however currently only the block `FE80::/64` has been allocated for "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses". This might change in the future however; more addresses in `FE80::/10` could be allocated and those will have Link-Local scope. I therefore believe the current behaviour of `is_unicast_link_local` to be correct (if interpreting it to have the semantics of `has_unicast_link_local_scope`) and `is_unicast_link_local_strict` to be unnecessary, confusing and even a potential source of future bugs:
Currently there is no real difference in checking `FE80::/10` or `FE80::/64`, since any address in practice will be `FE80::/64`. However if an application uses `is_unicast_link_local_strict` to implement link-local (so non-global) behaviour, it will be incorrect in the future if addresses outside of `FE80::/64` are allocated.
r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
Per discussion in #84326. For trait implementations, this was
misleading: the items actually do have documentation (but it comes from
the trait definition).
For both trait implementations and trait implementors, this was
redundant: in both of those cases, the items are default-hidden by
different toggle at the level above.
Update tests: Remove XPath selectors that over-specified on details tag,
in cases that weren't testing toggles. Add an explicit test for toggles
on methods. Rename item-hide-threshold to toggle-item-contents for
consistency.
Fix span of redundant generic arguments
Fixes#71563
Above issue is about lifetime arguments, but generic arguments also have same problem.
This PR fixes both help messages.
Add `String::extend_from_within`
This PR adds `String::extend_from_within` function under the `string_extend_from_within` feature gate similar to the [`Vec::extend_from_within`] function.
```rust
// String
pub fn extend_from_within<R>(&mut self, src: R)
where
R: RangeBounds<usize>;
```
[`Vec::extend_from_within`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81656
Add documentation for aarch64-apple-ios-sim target
Documentation as requested for [MCP 428](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/428) to promote this target to Tier 2.
Currently it calls out that it's Tier 3. That should be changed if this target is promoted, but this PR could also land before that.
Note: probably should get signoff from the compiler team based on that MCP.
Use correct edition when parsing `:pat` matchers
As described in issue #85708, we currently do not properly decode
`SyntaxContext::root()` and `ExpnId::root()` from foreign crates. As a
result, when we decode a span from a foreign crate with
`SyntaxContext::root()`, we end up up considering it to have the edition
of the *current* crate, instead of the foreign crate where it was
originally created.
A full fix for this issue will be a fairly significant undertaking.
Fortunately, it's possible to implement a partial fix, which gives us
the correct edition-dependent behavior for `:pat` matchers when the
macro is loaded from another crate. Since we have the edition of the
macro's defining crate available, we can 'recover' from seeing a
`SyntaxContext::root()` and use the edition of the macro's defining
crate.
Any solution to issue #85708 must reproduce the behavior of this
targeted fix - properly preserving a foreign `SyntaxContext::root()`
means (among other things) preserving its edition, which by definition
is the edition of the foreign crate itself. Therefore, this fix moves us
closer to the correct overall solution, and does not expose any new
incorrect behavior to macros.
Add eslint checks to CI
It also allowed me to fix some potential issues that went unnoticed. Having this process automated will hopefully prevent us to add more errors. :)
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` (for the add in the CI).
r? `@jsha`
