Clarify Path::extension() semantics in docs abstract
State up-front and center what shape the returned extension will have, without making the user read through the description and examples.
This is a doc-only change. There are no changes to the API contract and the clarification is in line with what was already stated/promised in the existing doc text - just clarified, summarized, and served bright and early.
Rationale: Various frameworks and libraries for different platforms have their different conventions as to whether an "extension" is ".ext" or just "ext" and anyone that's had to deal with this ambiguity in the past is always double- or triple-checking to make sure the function call returns an extension that matches the expected semantics. Offer the answer to this important question right off the bat instead of making them dig to find it.
```@rustbot``` label +A-docs
Adding ignore fuchsia tests for Backtrace, ErrorKind cases
Tests where Backtrace parses are required (invalid since Fuchsia backtraces are not symbolized), and test where ErrorKind is not properly translated from a Fuchsia-style to Unix-style error code
cc. ```@djkoloski```
r? ```@tmandry```
Add armv5te-none-eabi and thumbv5te-none-eabi targets
Creates two new Tier 3 targets, `armv5te-none-eabi` and `thumbv5te-none-eabi`. They are for the same target architecture (armv5te), but one defaults to the A32 instruction set and the other defaults to T32. Based on the existing `armv4t-none-eabi` and `thumbv4t-none-eabi` targets.
My particular use case for these targets is Nintendo DS homebrew, but they should be usable for any armv5te system.
Going through the Tier 3 target policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
That will be me.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets.
Naming is consistent with previous targets.
>> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility.
No ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
Doesn't create any legal issues.
>> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
This doesn't introduce any new licenses.
>> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Yep.
>> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
No new license requirements.
>> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
Everything this uses is FOSS, no proprietary required.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
OK.
>> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
OK.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This is a bare-metal target with only support for `core` (and `alloc`, if the user provides an allocator).
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Documentation has been added.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
OK.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
OK.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
This doesn't break any other targets.
>> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No unnecessary unconditional features here.
Fix ICE in `unnecessary_to_owned`
Fixes#9504
Compiler generated call `into_future` nodes return empty substs which we need when checking it's predicates. Handle this by simply exitting when we encounter one. This change introduces false negatives in place of the ICEs.
changelog: [`unnecessary_to_owned`]: fix ICE
Fixes#9504
Compiler generated call `into_iter` nodes return empty substs
which we need when checking it's predicates. Handle this by
simply exitting when we encounter one. This change introduces
false negatives in place of the ICEs.
a fn pointer doesn't implement `Fn`/`FnMut`/`FnOnce` if its return type isn't sized
I stumbled upon #83915 which hasn't received much attention recently, and I wanted to revive it since this is one existing soundness hole that seems pretty easy to fix.
I'm not actually sure that the [alternative approach described here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83915#issuecomment-823643322) is sufficient, given the `src/test/ui/function-pointer/unsized-ret.rs` example I provided below. Rebasing the branch mentioned in that comment and testing that UI test, it seems that we actually end up only observing that `str: !Sized` during monomorphization, whereupon we ICE. Even if we were to fix that ICE, ideally we'd be raising an error that a fn pointer is being used badly during _typecheck_ instead of monomorphization, hence adapting the original approach in #83915.
I am happy to close this if people would prefer we rebase the original PR and land that -- I am partly opening to be annoying and get people thinking about this unsoundness again ❤️😸
cc: `@estebank` and `@nikomatsakis`
r? types
Here's a link to the thread: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/144729-t-types/topic/PR.20.2383915/near/235421351 for more context.
It's now much more like the `-Zhir-stats` output.
- Each line is preceded with `meta-stats`, which makes the provenance
clearer and allows filtering of the output.
- Sections are now sorted in reverse order of size.
- Column headings avoid the need to repeat the word "bytes" on every line.
- Long numbers now have `_` separators for easier reading.
- Consistent use of '-' within section labels, rather than a mix of '-',
'_', and ' '.
The code itself is shorter and easier to read thanks to:
- the `stat` macro, which encapsulates each section's encoding, avoids
some boilerplate, and removes the need for some low-value comments;
- the `stats` vector, which replaces dozens of local variables.
Optimize `array::IntoIter`
`.into_iter()` on arrays was slower than it needed to be (especially compared to slice iterator) since it uses `Range<usize>`, which needs to handle degenerate ranges like `10..4`.
This PR adds an internal `IndexRange` type that's like `Range<usize>` but with a safety invariant that means it doesn't need to worry about those cases -- it only handles `start <= end` -- and thus can give LLVM more information to optimize better.
I added one simple demonstration of the improvement as a codegen test.
(`vec::IntoIter` uses pointers instead of indexes, so doesn't have this problem, but that only works because its elements are boxed. `array::IntoIter` can't use pointers because that would keep it from being movable.)
