Previously, the stability summary page attempted to associate impl
blocks with the module in which they were defined, rather than the
module defining the type they apply to (which is usually, but not
always, the same). Unfortunately, due to the basic architecture of
rustdoc, this meant that impls from re-exports were not being counted.
This commit makes the stability summary work the same way that rustdoc's
rendered output does: all methods are counted alongside the type they
apply to, no matter where the methods are defined.
In addition, for trait impl blocks only the stability of the overall
block is counted; the stability of the methods within is not
counted (since that stability level is part of the trait definition).
Fixes#18812
Substs were not applied when calling `untuple_arguments_if_necessary`.
Just apply them once at the start of the function, rebinding `fty`.
Also change the function to take them by reference since we don't
need to consume them at all. Closes#18883
This patch tweaks the stability inheritance infrastructure so that
`#{stable]` attributes are not inherited. Doing so solves two problems:
1. It allows us to mark module *names* as stable without accidentally
marking the items they contain as stable.
2. It means that a `#[stable]` attribution must always appear directly
on the item it applies to, which makes it easier for reviewers to catch
changes to stable APIs.
Fixes#17484
Throughout the docs, "failure" was replaced with "panics" if it means a
task panic. Otherwise, it remained as is, or changed to "errors" to
clearly differentiate it from a task panic.
I noticed today that `move` wasn't getting highlighted in my editor of choice (emacs), so I went ahead and added it as a keyword in the emacs, vim, and kate editor files. Apparently it has already been done for gedit.
Based on Windows bundle feedback we got to date,
- We *do* want to prefer the bundled linker: The external one might be for the wrong architecture (e.g. 32 bit vs 64 bit). On the other hand, binutils don't add many new features these days, so using an older bundled linker is not likely to be a problem.
- We *do* want to prefer bundled libraries: The external ones might not have the symbols we expect (e.g. what's needed for DWARF exceptions vs SjLj). Since `-L rustlib/<triple>/lib` appears first on the linker command line, it's a good place to keep our platform libs that we want to be found first.
Closes#18325, closes#17726.
It used to be in `rustKeyword`, until commit 5c75f210ba removed it, and then #18782 restored it again. However, this is now a closure modifier, and I think moving it to `rustStorage` is more appropriate to highlight it similarly to `mut`, `ref`, and the `&` sigil.
for the code:
```
use std::io;
#![crate_type="rlib"] // ERROR: an inner attribute is not permitted in this context
fn say_hello() {
println!("hello");
}
```
this PR provides another note to help programmer fixing this error more easily:
```
hello.rs:6:3: 6:4 error: an inner attribute is not permitted in this context
hello.rs:6 #![crate_type="rlib"]
^
hello.rs:6:3: 6:4 note: put inner attribute in top of file or block
hello.rs:6 #![crate_type="rlib"]
^
```
Previously, the stability summary page attempted to associate impl
blocks with the module in which they were defined, rather than the
module defining the type they apply to (which is usually, but not
always, the same). Unfortunately, due to the basic architecture of
rustdoc, this meant that impls from re-exports were not being counted.
This commit makes the stability summary work the same way that rustdoc's
rendered output does: all methods are counted alongside the type they
apply to, no matter where the methods are defined.
In addition, for trait impl blocks only the stability of the overall
block is counted; the stability of the methods within is not
counted (since that stability level is part of the trait definition).
Fixes#18812
Commit bec2ee77f7 started quoting paths
discovered as part of the `probe` function, which includes git. The
`make` `wildcard` function appears to be incompatible with quoted
paths so this check in the makefile now fails. Employing `wildcard`
here appears to only re-verify that git actually exists, which the
configure script already did, so I've just removed it.
Additionally, with the quoted paths the `subst` function should no
longer be needed, so I've removed it as well.
Closes#18771
I've implemented the new collection views API for TrieMap. I more or less followed the approach set out by @Gankro in BTreeMap, by using a `SearchStack`. There's quite a bit of unsafe code, but I've wrapped it safely where I think is appropriate. I've added tests to ensure everything works, and performance seems quite good.
```
test trie::bench_map::bench_find ... bench: 67879 ns/iter (+/- 4192)
test trie::bench_map::bench_find_entry ... bench: 186814 ns/iter (+/- 18748)
test trie::bench_map::bench_insert_large ... bench: 716612 ns/iter (+/- 160121)
test trie::bench_map::bench_insert_large_entry ... bench: 851219 ns/iter (+/- 20331)
test trie::bench_map::bench_remove ... bench: 838856 ns/iter (+/- 27998)
test trie::bench_map::bench_remove_entry ... bench: 981711 ns/iter (+/- 53046)
```
Using an entry is slow compared to a plain find, but is only ~15% slower for inserts and removes, which is where this API is most useful. I'm tempted to remove the standalone `remove` function in favour of an entry-based approach (to cut down on complexity).
I've added some more comments to the general part of the code-base, which will hopefully help the next person looking over this. I moved the three key structures to the top of the file so that the nesting structure is clearly visible, and renamed `Child<T>` to `TrieNode<T>` and `TrieNode<T>` to `InternalNode<T>` to improve clarity. If these changes are creeping, I'm happy to revert them.
Let me know if my use of `fail!` is ok, I was a little unsure of how specific to be. Some of the data-structures have various invariants that shouldn't be broken, so using `fail!` seemed appropriate.
## Still to do
* Modernise iterators (make them double-ended).
* Make the keys generic, or rename this data-structure (see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/14902).
* Possibly move this code out of libcollections. [Searching Github for TrieMap turns up very few real results.][triemap-search]
Related issues: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/18009 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/17320
[triemap-search]: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=TrieMap+language%3ARust&type=Code&ref=searchresults
