Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
Do not emit `missing_doc_code_examples` rustdoc lint on module and a few other items
It doesn't make sense to expect modules to have code examples. Same goes for:
* Trait aliases
* Foreign items
* Associated types and constants
Should make the use of this lint a bit nicer.
r? ``@notriddle``
Bail on more errors in dyn ty lowering
If we have more than one principal trait, or if we have a principal trait with errors in it, then bail with `TyKind::Error` rather than attempting lowering. Lowering a dyn trait with more than one principal just arbitrarily chooses the first one and drops the subsequent ones, and lowering a dyn trait path with errors in it is just kinda useless.
This suppresses unnecessary errors which I think is net-good, but also is important to make sure that we don't end up leaking `{type error}` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133388 error messaging :)
r? types
rustdoc: make doctest span tweak a 2024 edition change
Fixes#132203
This is a compatibility hack, because I think the new behavior is better. When an A `include_str!` B, and B `include_str!` C, the path to C should be resolved relative to B, not A. That's how `include!` itself works, so that's how `include_str!` with should work.
rustdoc: Remove usage of `allow(unused)` attribute on `no_run` merged doctests
Fixes [#130681](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130681).
It fixes the behaviour difference with the current doctests.
r? ``@notriddle``
Fixes#132203
This is a compatibility hack, because I think the new behavior is better.
When an A `include_str!` B, and B `include_str!` C, the path to C should
be resolved relative to B, not A. That's how `include!` itself works,
so that's how `include_str!` with should work.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Delay ambiguous intra-doc link resolution after `Cache` has been populated
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130233.
I was getting nowhere with #130278. I took a wrong turn at some point and ended making way too many changes so instead I started again back from 0 and this time it worked out as expected.
r? ```@notriddle```
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
rustdoc: rewrite stability inheritance as a doc pass
Since doc inlining can almost arbitrarily change the module hierarchy, we can't just use the HIR ancestors of an item to compute its effective stability. This PR moves the stability inheritance that I implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130798 into a new doc pass `propagate-stability` that runs after doc inlining and uses the post-inlining ancestors of an item to correctly compute its effective stability.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131020
r? `@notriddle`
Add `field@` and `variant@` doc-link disambiguators
I'm not sure if this is big enough to need an fcp or not, but this is something I found missing when trying to refer to a field in macro-generated docs, not knowing if a method might be defined as well. Obviously, there are definitely other uses.
In the case where it's not disambiguated, methods (and I suppose other associated items in the value namespace) still take priority, which `@jyn514` said was an oversight but I think is probably the desired behavior 99% of the time anyway - shadowing a field with an accessor method is a very common pattern. If fields and methods with the same name started conflicting, it would be a breaking change. Though, to quote them:
> jyn: maybe you can break this only if both [the method and the field] are public
> jyn: rustc has some future-incompat warning level
> jyn: that gets through -A warnings and --cap-lints from cargo
That'd be out of scope of this PR, though.
Fixes#80283
