We used to avoid doing this because we didn't want to make coercion depend on
the state of inference. For better or worse, we have moved away from this
position over time. Therefore, I am going to go ahead and resolve the `b`
target type early on so that it is done uniformly.
(The older technique for managing this was always something of a hack
regardless; if we really wanted to avoid integrating coercion and inference we
needed to be more disciplined about it.)
The name (and updated documentation) make the FFI-only usage clearer, and wrapping Option<OwnedHandle> avoids the need to write a separate Drop or Debug impl.
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Use a trait instead of the now disallowed missing trait there
To properly test the unused generic parameter and just that we need to use a trait in the tait. Missing the trait there is already tested and is not what we meant to test here.
r? `@oli-obk`
Add tests for some `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` incr comp issues
Closes#77650Closes#79251#79251 didn't seem to be ICEing anymore so added regression tests for that aswell
r? `@oli-obk`
[rustdoc] Wrap code blocks in <code> tag
This PR modifies Rustdoc output so that fenced code snippets, items and whole file source codes are wrapped in `<pre><code>` instead of just `<pre>`. This should improve the semantic meaning of the generated content.
I'm not sure what to do about `render_attributes_in_pre` and `render_attributes_in_code`. These functions were clearly expected to be used for things inside `<pre>` or `<code>`, and since I added `<code>` in this PR, some of them will be used in a different context than before. However, it seems to me that even before they were not consistent. For example, `item_constant` used `render_attributes_in_code` for its attributes, however there was no `<code>` used for constants before this PR...
Should I create some `rustdoc-gui` tests? For example to check that all `<pre>` tags have a `<code>` child?
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88020
Remove `HashStable` impls for `FileName` and `RealFileName`
These impls were unused, and incorrectly hashed the local
(non-remapped) path for `RealFileName::Remapped` (which would
break reproducible builds if these impls were used).
Add TcpStream type to TcpListener::incoming docs
## Context
While going through the "The Rust Programming Language" book (Klabnik & Nichols), the TCP server example directs us to use TcpListener::incoming. I was curious how I could pass this value to a function (before reading ahead in the book), so I looked up the docs to determine the signature.
When I opened the docs, I found https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming, which didn't mention TcpStream anywhere in the example.
Eventually, I clicked on https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.accept in the docs (after clicking a few other locations first), and was able to surmise that the value contained TcpStream.
## Opportunity
While this type is mentioned several times in this doc, I feel that someone should be able to fully use the results of the TcpListner::incoming iterator based solely on the docs of just this method.
## Implementation
I took the code from the top-level TcpListener https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming and blended it with the existing docs for TcpListener::incoming https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming.
It does make the example a little longer, and it also introduces a little duplication. It also gives the reader the type signatures they need to move on to the next step.
## Additional considerations
I noticed that in this doc, `handle_connection` and `handle_client` are both used to accept a TcpStream in the docs on this page. I want to standardize on one function name convention, so readers don't accidentally think two different concepts are being referenced. I didn't want to cram do too much in one PR, I can update this PR to make that change, or I could send another PR (if you would like).
First attempted contribution to Rust (and I'm also still very new, hence reading through the rust book for the first time)! Would you please let me know what you think?
Preserve more spans in internal `rustc_queries!` macro
We now preserve the span of the various query modifiers, and
use the span of the query's name for the commas that we
generate to separate the modifiers. This makes debugging issues with the
internal query macro infrastructure much nicer - previously, we
would get errors messages pointing at the entire call site
(the `rustc_queries!` invocation), which isn't very useful.
This should have no effect when compilation succeeds.
A concrete example of an error message produced after this changed:
```
error: local ambiguity: multiple parsing options: built-in NTs tt ('modifiers') or 1 other option.
--> /home/aaron/repos/rust/compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs:23:11
|
12 | / rustc_queries! {
13 | | query trigger_delay_span_bug(key: DefId) -> () {
14 | | desc { "trigger a delay span bug" }
15 | | }
... |
23 | | query hir_crate(key: ()) -> &'tcx Crate<'tcx> {
| | ^^^^^^^^^
... |
1715 | | }
1716 | | }
| |_- in this expansion of `rustc_query_append!`
|
::: compiler/rustc_query_impl/src/lib.rs:51:1
|
51 | rustc_query_append! { [define_queries!][<'tcx>] }
| ------------------------------------------------- in this macro invocation
```
The particular bug shown in this error message will be fixed
in a separate PR.
Update the backtrace crate in libstd
This commit updates the backtrace crate in libstd now that dependencies
have been updated to use `memchr` from the standard library as well.
This is mostly just making sure deps are up-to-date and have all the
latest-and-greatest fixes and such.
Closesrust-lang/backtrace-rs#432
These API changes appear to have all taken place in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105007, which moved HWAddressSanitizerPass and
AddressSanitizerPass to only accept their options type as a ctor
argument instead of the sequence of bools etc. This required a couple of
parameter additions, which I made match the default prior to the
mentioned upstream LLVM change.
This patch restores rustc to building (though not quite passing all
tests, I've mailed other patches for those issues) against LLVM HEAD.
