Don't build in-tree llvm-libunwind if system-llvm-libunwind is enable
When "system-llvm-libunwind" is enabled, some target eg. musl still build in-tree llvm-libunwind which is useless.
BTreeMap: tougher checking on most uses of copy_nonoverlapping
Miri checks pointer provenance and destination, but we can check it in debug builds already.
Also, we can let Miri confirm we don't mistake imprints of moved keys and values as genuine.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Fix safety comment
The size assertion in the comment was inverted compared to the code. After fixing that the implication that `(new_size >= old_size) => new_size != 0` still doesn't hold so explain why `old_size != 0` at this point.
Implement From<char> for u64 and u128.
With this PR you can write
```
let u = u64::from('👤');
let u = u128::from('👤');
```
Previously, you could already write `as` conversions ([Playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=cee18febe28e69024357d099f07ca081)):
```
// Lossless conversions
dbg!('👤' as u32); // Prints 128100
dbg!('👤' as u64); // Prints 128100
dbg!('👤' as u128); // Prints 128100
// truncates, thus no `From` impls.
dbg!('👤' as u8); // Prints 100
dbg!('👤' as u16); // Prints 62564
// These `From` impls already exist.
dbg!(u32::from('👤')); // Prints 128100
dbg!(u64::from(u32::from('👤'))); // Prints 128100
```
The idea is from ``@gendx`` who opened [this Internals thread](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/implement-from-char-for-u64/13454), and ``@withoutboats`` responded that someone should open a PR for it.
Some people mentioned `From<char>` impls for `f32` and `f64`, but that doesn't seem correct to me, so I didn't include them here.
I don't know what the feature should be named. Must it be registered somewhere, like unstable features?
r? ``@withoutboats``
Rustdoc: Fix macros 2.0 and built-in derives being shown at the wrong path
Fixes#74355
- ~~waiting on author + draft PR since my code ought to be cleaned up _w.r.t._ the way I avoid the `.unwrap()`s:~~
- ~~dummy items may avoid the first `?`,~~
- ~~but within the module traversal some tests did fail (hence the second `?`), meaning the crate did not possess the exact path of the containing module (`extern` / `impl` blocks maybe? I'll look into that).~~
r? `@jyn514`
Optimize away some path lookups in the generic `fs::copy` implementation
This also eliminates a use of a `Path` convenience function, in support
of #80741, refactoring `std::path` to focus on pure data structures and
algorithms.
Improve wording of parse doc
Change:
```
`parse` can parse any type that...
```
to:
```
`parse` can parse into any type that...
```
Word `into` added to be more precise and in coherence with other parts of the doc.
Stabilize slice::strip_prefix and slice::strip_suffix
These two methods are useful. The corresponding methods on `str` are already stable.
I believe that stablising these now would not get in the way of, in the future, extending these to take a richer pattern API a la `str`'s patterns.
Tracking PR: #73413. I also have an outstanding PR to improve the docs for these two functions and the corresponding ones on `str`: #75078
I have tried to follow the [instructions in the dev guide](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/stabilization_guide.html#stabilization-pr). The part to do with `compiler/rustc_feature` did not seem applicable. I assume that's because these are just library features, so there is no corresponding machinery in rustc.
The size assertion in the comment was inverted compared to the code. After fixing that the implication that `(new_size >= old_size) => new_size != 0` still doesn't hold so explain why `old_size != 0` at this point.
Change:
```
`parse` can parse any type that...
```
to:
```
`parse` can parse into any type that...
```
Word `into` added to be more precise and in coherence with other parts of the doc.
This also eliminates a use of a `Path` convenience function, in support
of #80741, refactoring `std::path` to focus on pure data structures and
algorithms.
Add more code spans to docs in intrinsics.rs
I have added some more code spans in core/src/intrinsics.rs, changing some `=` to `==`, etc. I also changed the wording in some sections.
remove allow(incomplete_features) from std
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80349#issuecomment-753357123
> Now I am somewhat concerned that the standard library uses some of these features...
I think it is theoretically ok to use incomplete features in the standard library or the compiler if we know that there is an already working subset and we explicitly document what we have to be careful about. Though at that point it is probably better to try and split the incomplete feature into two separate ones, similar to `min_specialization`.
Will be interesting once `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` works well enough to imo be used in the compiler but not yet well enough to be removed from `INCOMPLETE_FEATURES`.
r? `@RalfJung`
Add docs note about `Any::type_id` on smart pointers
Fixes#79868.
There's an issue I've run into a couple times while using values of type `Box<dyn Any>` - essentially, calling `value.type_id()` doesn't dereference to the trait object, but uses the implementation of `Any` for `Box<dyn Any>`, giving us the `TypeId` of the container instead of the object inside it.
I couldn't find any notes about this in the documentation and - while it could be inferred from existing knowledge of Rust and the blanket implemenation of `Any` - I think it'd be nice to have a note about it in the documentation for the `any` module.
Anyways, here's a first draft of a section about it. I'm happy to revise wording :)
Remove many unnecessary manual link resolves from library
Now that #76934 has merged, we can remove a lot of these! E.g, this is
no longer necessary:
[`Vec<T>`]: Vec
cc `@jyn514`
