Adds a new CI job which checks that the compiler builds with
`--enable-debug` and tests that `needs-force-clang-based-tests` pass
(where cross-language LTO is tested).
Remove the `Arc` rt::init allocation for thread info
Removes an allocation pre-main by just not storing anything in std:🧵:Thread for the main thread.
- The thread name can just be a hard coded literal, as was done in #123433.
- Storing ThreadId and Parker in a static that is initialized once at startup. This uses SyncUnsafeCell and MaybeUninit as this is quite performance critical and we don't need synchronization or to store a tag value and possibly leave in a panic.
This commit adds new "Textual representation" documentation sections to
SocketAddrV4 and SocketAddrV6, by analogy to the existing
"textual representation" sections of Ipv4Addr and Ipv6Addr.
Rationale: Without documentation about which formats are actually
accepted, it's hard for a programmer to be sure that their code
will actually behave as expected when implementing protocols that
require support (or rejection) for particular representations.
This lack of clarity can in turn can lead to ambiguities and
security problems like those discussed in RFC 6942.
(I've tried to describe the governing RFCs or standards where I
could, but it's possible that the actual implementers had something
else in mind. I could not find any standards that corresponded
_exactly_ to the one implemented in SocketAddrv6, but I have linked
the relevant documents that I could find.)
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129248 (Taking a raw ref (`&raw (const|mut)`) of a deref of pointer (`*ptr`) is always safe)
- #131906 (rustdoc: adjust spacing and typography in header)
- #132084 (Consider param-env candidates even if they have errors)
- #132096 (Replace an FTP link in comments with an equivalent HTTPS link)
- #132098 (rustc_feature::Features: explain what that 'Option<Symbol>' is about)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add units/unit prefixes of frequency to doc-valid-idents
These units/unit prefixes often come up in the embedded world.
Should this PR also modify the `test_units` test? It seems only concerned with data units currently; should it also test frequency units?
changelog: [`doc_markdown`]: Add MHz, GHz, and THz to `doc-valid-idents`.
Replace an FTP link in comments with an equivalent HTTPS link
Modern browsers and editors often don't support following FTP links, so using an ordinary web link gives the same result in a more convenient way.
Consider param-env candidates even if they have errors
I added this logic in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106309, but frankly I don't know why -- the logic was a very large hammer. It seems like recent changes to error tainting has made that no longer necessary.
Ideally we'd rework the way we handle error reporting in all of candidate assembly to be a bit more responsible; we're just suppressing candidates all willy-nilly and it leads to mysterious *other* errors cropping up, like the one that #132082 originally wanted to fix.
**N.B.** This has the side-effect of turning a failed resolution like `where Missing: Sized` into a trivial where clause that matches all types, but also I don't think it really matters?
I'm putting this up as an alternative to #132082, since that PR doesn't address the case when one desugars the APIT into a regular type param.
r? lcnr vibeck
Taking a raw ref (`&raw (const|mut)`) of a deref of pointer (`*ptr`) is always safe
T-opsem decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 that `*ptr` is only unsafe if the place is accessed. This means that taking a raw ref of a deref expr is always safe, since it doesn't constitute a read.
This also relaxes the `DEREF_NULLPTR` lint to stop warning in the case of raw ref of a deref'd nullptr, and updates its docs to reflect that change in the UB specification.
This does not change the behavior of `addr_of!((*ptr).field)`, since field projections still require the projection is in-bounds.
I'm on the fence whether this requires an FCP, since it's something that is guaranteed by the reference you could ostensibly call this a bugfix since we were counting truly safe operations as unsafe. Perhaps someone on opsem has a strong opinion? cc `@rust-lang/opsem`
