Rename `Alloc` to `AllocRef`
The allocator-wg has decided to merge this change upstream in https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-577122958.
This renames `Alloc` to `AllocRef` because types that implement `Alloc` are a reference, smart pointer, or ZSTs. It is not possible to have an allocator like `MyAlloc([u8; N])`, that owns the memory and also implements `Alloc`, since that would mean, that moving a `Vec<T, MyAlloc>` would need to correct the internal pointer, which is not possible as we don't have move constructors.
For further explanation please see https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-489464843 and the comments after that one.
Additionally it clarifies the semantics of `Clone` on an allocator. In the case of `AllocRef`, it is clear that the cloned handle still points to the same allocator instance, and that you can free data allocated from one handle with another handle.
The initial proposal was to rename `Alloc` to `AllocHandle`, but `Ref` expresses the semantics better than `Handle`. Also, the only appearance of `Handle` in `std` are for windows specific resources, which might be confusing.
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1160
Mainly for API parity with HashMap.
- Add BTreeMap::remove_entry
- Rewrite BTreeMap::remove to use remove_entry
- Use btreemap_remove_entry feature in doc comment
Stabilize ptr::slice_from_raw_parts[_mut]
Closes#36925, the tracking issue.
Initial impl: #60667
r? @rust-lang/libs
In addition to stabilizing, I've adjusted the example of `ptr::slice_from_raw_parts` to use `slice_from_raw_parts` instead of `slice_from_raw_parts_mut`, which was unnecessary for the example as written.
check_match: extract common logic
This is part of work on `hir::ExprKind::Let` which I thought made sense on its own (though makes even more sense with `::Let`).
r? @oli-obk
Bump LLVM submodule to fix LLVM assertion failure in MSP430 interrupt generation.
This PR brings in changes introduced by [this cherry-pick](https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project/pull/37) to the Rust repository.
Nightlies downloaded from `rustup` do not appear to have llvm assertions enabled; the assertion failure [sometimes](https://github.com/YuhanLiin/msp430fr2355-quickstart/issues/3) causes link errors that shouldn't occur. I couldn't find any indication of other bugs; however, it should still be fixed.
Stabilize the debug_map_key_value feature
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2696
Tracking issue: #62482
Stabilizes the `debug_map_key_value` feature, which covers:
```rust
impl<'a, 'b> DebugMap<'a, 'b> {
pub fn key(&mut self, key: &dyn fmt::Debug) -> &mut DebugMap<'a, 'b> {}
pub fn value(&mut self, value: &dyn fmt::Debug) -> &mut DebugMap<'a, 'b> {}
}
```
These methods are small and self-contained, and are used as the basis for the existing `DebugMap::entry` method, so have been used in the wild for the last 6 months or so.
Update cargo
2 commits in b68b0978ab8012f871c80736fb910d14b89c4498..9d32b7b01409024b165545c568b1525d86e2b7cb
2020-01-24 18:26:23 +0000 to 2020-01-26 18:27:29 +0000
- Polish code to clarify meaning (rust-lang/cargo#7836)
- Store maximum queue length (rust-lang/cargo#7829)
don't clone types that are copy, round two.
Apparently fixing some of these issues makes clippy find even more so I did a couple of rounds now.
r? @eddyb
Add leading_ones and trailing_ones methods to the primitive integer types
I was surprised these were missing (given that `leading_zeros` and `trailing_zeros` exist), and they seem trivial and hopefully not controversial.
Note that there's some precedent in that `count_ones` and `count_zeros` are both supported even though only one of these has an intrinsic.
I'm not sure if these need a `rustc_const_unstable` flag (the tests don't seem to mind that it's missing). I just made them const, since there's not really any reason for these to be non-const when the `_zeros` variants are const.
Note: My understanding is trivial stuff like (hopefully) this can land without an RFC, but I'm not fully sure about the process though. Questions like "when does the tracking issue get filed?", are a total mystery to me. So, any guidance is appreciated, and sorry in advance if I should have gone through some more involved process for this.
