Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129260 (Don't suggest adding return type for closures with default return type)
- #129520 (Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant)
- #129866 (Clarify documentation labelling and definitions for std::collections)
- #130123 (Report the `note` when specified in `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`)
- #130161 (refactor merge base logic and fix `x fmt`)
- #130206 (Map `WSAEDQUOT` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemQuotaExceeded`)
- #130207 (Map `ERROR_CANT_RESOLVE_FILENAME` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemLoop`)
- #130219 (Fix false positive with `missing_docs` and `#[test]`)
- #130221 (Make SearchPath::new public)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make SearchPath::new public
I'm writing a tool that uses `rustc_interface`, and would like to construct `SearchPath` with its `new` method.
As all three fields in `SearchPath` are public anyway, the proposed change should not change the privacy or encapsulation of the struct.
Fix false positive with `missing_docs` and `#[test]`
Since #130025, the compiler don't ignore missing_docs when compiling the tests. But there is now a false positive warning for every `#[test]`
For example, this code
```rust
//! Crate docs
fn just_a_test() {}
```
Would emit this warning when running `cargo test`
```
warning: missing documentation for a constant
--> src/lib.rs:5:1
|
4 | #[test]
| ------- in this procedural macro expansion
5 | fn just_a_test() {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Map `ERROR_CANT_RESOLVE_FILENAME` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemLoop`
cc #86442
As summarized in #130188, there seems to be a consensus that this should be done.
refactor merge base logic and fix `x fmt`
When remote upstream is not configured, using [get_git_modified_files](38e3a5771c/src/tools/build_helper/src/git.rs (L114)) to find modified files fails because [get_rust_lang_rust_remote](38e3a5771c/src/tools/build_helper/src/git.rs (L46-L48)) can not resolve "rust-lang/rust" from the git output. The changes in this PR makes bootstrap to find the latest bors commit, treating it as the "closest upstream commit" so that the change tracker logic can use it to find the diffs.
In addition, [skips formatting](e392454483) if there are no modified files.
Fixes#130147
Report the `note` when specified in `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`
Before this PR the `note` field was completely ignored for some reason, now it is shown (I think) correctly during the hir typechecking phase.
1. Report the `note` when specified in `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`
2. Added a test for unimplemented trait diagnostic
3. Added a test for custom unimplemented trait diagnostic
Close#130084
P.S. This is my first PR to rustc.
Clarify documentation labelling and definitions for std::collections
Page affected: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/index.html#performance
Changes:
- bulleted conventions
- expanded definitions on terms used
- more accessible language
- more informative headings
Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant
Closes#126243
I add a suggestion on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant.
Since #130025, the compiler don't ignore missing_docs when compiling the tests.
But there is now a false positive warning for every `#[test]`
For example, this code
```rust
//! Crate docs
fn just_a_test() {}
```
Would emit this warning when running `cargo test`
```
warning: missing documentation for a constant
--> src/lib.rs:5:1
|
4 | #[test]
| ------- in this procedural macro expansion
5 | fn just_a_test() {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
generalize: track relevant info in cache key
This was previously theoretically incomplete as we could incorrectly generalize as if the type was in an invariant context even though we're in a covariant one. Similar with the `in_alias` flag.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Enumerate lint expectations using AttrId
This PR implements the idea I outlined in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127884#issuecomment-2240338547
We can uniquely identify a lint expectation `#[expect(lint0, lint1...)]` using the `AttrId` and the index of the lint inside the attribute. This PR uses this property in `check_expectations`.
In addition, this PR stops stashing expected diagnostics to wait for the unstable -> stable `LintExpectationId` mapping: if the lint is emitted with an unstable attribute, it must have been emitted by an `eval_always` query (like inside the resolver), so won't be loaded from cache. Decoding an `AttrId` from the on-disk cache ICEs, so we have no risk of accidentally checking an expectation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127884
cc `@xFrednet`
This flag allows specifying the threshold size above which LLVM should
not consider placing small objects in a .sdata or .sbss section.
Support is indicated in the target options via the
small-data-threshold-support target option, which can indicate either an
LLVM argument or an LLVM module flag. To avoid duplicate specifications
in a large number of targets, the default value for support is
DefaultForArch, which is translated to a concrete value according to the
target's architecture.
abi/compatibility test: remove tests inside repr(C) wrappers
When I wrote the test I assumed we'd guarantee ABI compatibility to be "structural" wrt `repr(C)` types, i.e. if two `repr(C)` types have all their fields be pairwise ABI-compatible then the types are ABI-compatible. That got removed from the ABI compatibility docs before they landed, though, so let's also remove it from this test.
coverage: Clean up terminology in counter creation
Some of the terminology in this module is confusing, or has drifted out of sync with other parts of the coverage code.
This PR therefore renames some variables and methods, and adjusts comments and debug logging statements, to make things clearer and more consistent.
No functional changes, other than some small tweaks to debug logging.
miri-test-libstd: add missing BOOTSTRAP_ARGS
Note sure if BOOTSTRAP_ARGS will make any difference here, but all the other x.py invocations have it and I did not *deliberately* leave it away when I added these, so... probably best to add them?
Also don't unnecessarily set BOOTSTRAP_SKIP_TARGET_SANITY while we are at it.
