There is a Self: PartialOrd bound in Ord::clamp, but it is already
required by the trait itself. Likely a left-over from the const trait
deletion in 76dbe29104.
Reported-by: @noeensarguet
Update Trusty target maintainers
Remove Stephen Crane from the list of Trusty target maintainers and add Andrei Homescu (`@ahomescu)` and Chris Wailes.
Add new_cyclic_in for Rc and Arc
Currently, new_cyclic_in does not exist for Rc and Arc. This is an oversight according to https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/132.
This PR adds new_cyclic_in for Rc and Arc. The implementation is almost the exact same as new_cyclic with some small differences to make it allocator-specific. new_cyclic's implementation has been replaced with a call to `new_cyclic_in(data_fn, Global)`.
Remaining questions:
* ~~Is requiring Allocator to be Clone OK? According to https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/88, Allocators should be cheap to clone. I'm just hesitant to add unnecessary constraints, though I don't see an obvious workaround for this function since many called functions in new_cyclic_in expect an owned Allocator. I see Allocator.by_ref() as an option, but that doesn't work on when creating Weak { ptr: init_ptr, alloc: alloc.clone() }, because the type of Weak then becomes Weak<T, &A> which is incompatible.~~ Fixed, thank you `@zakarumych!` This PR no longer requires the allocator to be Clone.
* Currently, new_cyclic_in's documentation is almost entirely copy-pasted from new_cyclic, with minor tweaks to make it more accurate (e.g. Rc<T> -> Rc<T, A>). The example section is removed to mitigate redundancy and instead redirects to cyclic_in. Is this appropriate?
* ~~The comments in new_cyclic_in (and much of the implementation) are also copy-pasted from new_cyclic. Would it be better to make a helper method new_cyclic_in_internal that both functions call, with either Global or the custom allocator? I'm not sure if that's even possible, since the internal method would have to return Arc<T, Global> and I don't know if it's possible to "downcast" that to an Arc<T>. Maybe transmute would work here?~~ Done, thanks `@zakarumych`
* Arc::new_cyclic is #[inline], but Rc::new_cyclic is not. Which is preferred?
* nit: does it matter where in the impl block new_cyclic_in is defined?
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128535 (Format `std::env::consts` docstrings with markdown backticks)
- #128961 (Fix#128930: Print documentation of CLI options missing their arg)
- #129988 (Use `Vec` in `rustc_interface::Config::locale_resources`)
- #130201 (Encode `coroutine_by_move_body_def_id` in crate metadata)
- #130275 (Don't call `extern_crate` when local crate name is the same as a dependency and we have a trait error)
- #130314 (Use the same precedence for all macro-like exprs)
- #130440 (Don't ICE in `opaque_hidden_inferred_bound` lint for RPITIT in trait with no default method body)
- #130458 (`rustc_codegen_ssa` cleanups)
- #130469 (Mark `where_clauses_object_safety` as removed)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
In the implementation of `force_mut`, I chose performance over safety.
For `LazyLock` this isn't really a choice; the code has to be unsafe.
But for `LazyCell`, we can have a full-safe implementation, but it will
be a bit less performant, so I went with the unsafe approach.
Use the same precedence for all macro-like exprs
No need to make these have a different precedence since they're all written like `whatever!(expr)`, and it makes it simpler when adding new macro-based built-in operators in the future.
Don't call `extern_crate` when local crate name is the same as a dependency and we have a trait error
#124944 implemented logic to point out when a trait bound failure involves a *trait* and *type* who come from identically named but different crates. This logic calls the `extern_crate` query which is not valid on `LOCAL_CRATE` cnum, so let's filter that out eagerly.
Fixes#130272Fixes#129184
Encode `coroutine_by_move_body_def_id` in crate metadata
We synthesize the MIR for a by-move body for the `FnOnce` implementation of async closures. It can be accessed with the `coroutine_by_move_body_def_id` query. We weren't encoding this query in the metadata though, nor were we properly recording that synthetic MIR in `mir_keys`, so the `optimized_mir` wasn't getting encoded either!
Stacked on top is a fix to consider `DefKind::SyntheticCoroutineBody` to return true in several places I missed. Specifically, we should consider the def-kind in `fn DefKind::is_fn_like()`, since that's what we were using to make sure we ensure `query mir_inliner_callees` before the MIR gets stolen for the body. This led to some CI failures that were caught by miri but which I added a test for.
Use `Vec` in `rustc_interface::Config::locale_resources`
This allows a third-party tool to injects its own resources, when receiving the config via `rustc_driver::Callbacks::config`.
Fix#128930: Print documentation of CLI options missing their arg
Fix#128930. Failing to give an argument to CLI options which require it now prints something like:
```
$ rustc --print
error: Argument to option 'print' missing
Usage:
--print [crate-name|file-names|sysroot|target-libdir|cfg|check-cfg|calling-conventions|target-list|target-cpus|target-features|relocation-models|code-models|tls-models|target-spec-json|all-target-specs-json|native-static-libs|stack-protector-strategies|link-args|deployment-target]
Compiler information to print on stdout
```
On LLVM 20, these instructions already get eliminated, which at least
partially satisfies a TODO. I'm not talented enough at using FileCheck
to try and constrain this further, but if we really want to we could
copy an LLVM 20 specific version of this test that would restore it to
being CHECK-NEXT: insertvalue ...
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
Relate receiver invariantly in method probe for `Mode::Path`
Effectively reverts part of #126128Fixes#126227
This PR changes method probing to use equality for fully path-based method lookup, and subtyping for receiver `.` method lookup.
r? lcnr
Remove semi-nondeterminism of `DefPathHash` ordering from inliner
Déjà vu or something because I kinda thought I had put this PR up before. I recall a discussion somewhere where I think it was `@saethlin` mentioning that this check was no longer needed since we have "proper" cycle detection. Putting that up as a PR now.
This may slighlty negatively affect inlining, since the cycle breaking here means that we still inlined some cycles when the def path hashes were ordered in certain ways, this leads to really bad nondeterminism that makes minimizing ICEs and putting up inliner bugfixes difficult.
r? `@cjgillot` or `@saethlin` or someone else idk
`'mir` is not a good lifetime name in `LocalAnalyzer`, because it's used
on two unrelated fields. `'a` is more standard for a situation like this
(e.g. #130022).
fix: Remove duplicate `LazyLock` example.
The top-level docs for `LazyLock` included two lines of code, each with an accompanying comment, that were identical and with nearly- identical comments. This looks like an oversight from a past edit which was perhaps trying to rewrite an existing example but ended up duplicating rather than replacing, though I haven't gone back through the Git history to check.
This commit removes what I personally think is the less-clear of the two examples.
