Properly render HRTBs
```rust
pub fn test<T>()
where
for<'a> &'a T: Iterator,
{}
```
This will now render properly including the `for<'a>`
I do not know if this covers all cases, it only covers everything that I could think of that includes `for` and lifetimes in where bounds.
Also someone need to mentor me on how to add a proper rustdoc test for this.
Resolves#78482
Use HTTPS links where possible
While looking at #86583, I wondered how many other (insecure) HTTP links were in `rustc`. This changes most other `http` links to `https`. While most of the links are in comments or documentation, there are a few other HTTP links that are used by CI that are changed to HTTPS.
Notes:
- I didn't change any to or in licences
- Some links don't support HTTPS :(
- Some `http` links were dead, in those cases I upgraded them to their new places (all of which used HTTPS)
Check that `#[cmse_nonsecure_entry]` is applied to a function definition
This PR fixes#83475. The compiler currently neglects to check whether `#[cmse_nonsecure_entry]` is applied to a function (and not, say, a struct) definition, leading to an ICE later on when the type checker attempts to retrieve the function signature. I have fixed this problem by adding an appropriate check to the `check_attr` pass, so that an error is reported instead of an ICE.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #86330 (Change how edition based future compatibility warnings are handled)
- #86513 (Rustdoc: Do not list impl when trait has doc(hidden))
- #86592 (Use `#[non_exhaustive]` where appropriate)
- #86608 (chore(rustdoc): remove unused members of RenderType)
- #86624 (Update compiler-builtins)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Use `#[non_exhaustive]` where appropriate
Due to the std/alloc split, it is not possible to make `alloc::collections::TryReserveError::AllocError` non-exhaustive without having an unstable, doc-hidden method to construct (which negates the benefits from `#[non_exhaustive]`).
`@rustbot` label +C-cleanup +T-libs +S-waiting-on-review
Change how edition based future compatibility warnings are handled
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894 by updating how future compatibility lints work. This makes it more apparent that future compatibility warnings can happen for several different reasons.
For now `FutureCompatibilityReasons` are limited to three reasons, but we can easily add more.
This also updates the generated warning for FCW's that signal code that will error in a future edition. This makes the diagnostics between FCWs at edition boundaries more distinct from those not happening at an edition boundary.
r? ``@m-ou-se``
Use https for sourceforge during CI
I saw that we use http during CI opening up the CI process to on the wire tampering.
based on #86573
r? `@pietroalbini`
Add `BuildHasher::hash_one` as unstable
Inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86140/files#diff-246941135168fbc44fce120385ee9c3156e08a1c3e2697985b56dcb8d728eedeR2416, where I wanted to write a quick test for a `Hash` implementation and it took more of a dance than I'd hoped.
It looks like this would be handy in hashtable implementations, too -- a quick look at hashbrown found two places where it needs to do the same dance:
6302512a8a/src/map.rs (L247-L270)
I wanted to get a "seems plausible" from a libs member before making a tracking issue, so random-sampling the intersection of highfive and governance gave me...
r? `@joshtriplett`
(As always, bikeshed away! And let me know if I missed something obvious again that I should have used instead.)
Don't lint :pat when re-parsing a macro from another crate.
`compile_macro` is used both when compiling the original definition in the crate that defines it, and to compile the macro when loading it when compiling a crate that uses it. We should only emit lints in the first case.
This adds a `is_definition: bool` to pass this information in, so we don't warn about things that only concern the definition site.
Fixes#86567
tidy: verify that test revisions with --target have associated needs-llvm-components directives
This ensures that people who tend to write `--target` `#[no_core]` tests don't miss specifying the `needs-llvm-components` directive. This is necessary for the test suite to pass when LLVM is compiled with a subset of components enabled.
While here I also took the opportunity to implement a more fine-grained handling of the ignore directives, so that they are evaluated for each revision, rather than for the entire test. With this even if people have `arm` component disabled, only the revision that depends on the arm component will not run.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82405
Otherwise something that ought to seemingly work like `//[x86]
needs-llvm-components: x86` or `//[nll_beyond]should-fail` do not get
evaluated properly.
Herein we verify that all of the tests that specify a `--target`
compile-flag, are also annotated with the minimal set of required llvm
components necessary to run that test.
Fix use placement for suggestions near main.
This fixes an edge case for the suggestion to add a `use`. When running with `--test`, the `main` function will be annotated with an `#[allow(dead_code)]` attribute. The `UsePlacementFinder` would end up using the dummy span of that synthetic attribute. If there are top-level inner attributes, this would place the `use` in the wrong position. The solution here is to ignore attributes with dummy spans.
In the process of working on this, I discovered that the `use_suggestion_placement` test was broken. `UsePlacementFinder` is unaware of active attributes. Attributes like `#[derive]` don't exist in the AST since they are removed. Fixing that is difficult, since the AST does not retain enough information. I considered trying to place the `use` towards the top of the module after any `extern crate` items, but I couldn't find a way to get a span for the start of a module block (the `mod` span starts at the `mod` keyword, and it seems tricky to find the spot just after the opening bracket and past inner attributes). For now, I just put some comments about the issue. This appears to have been a known issue in #44215 where the test for it was introduced, and the fix seemed to be deferred to later.
