`display: inline-flex` was used as part of
e961d397cab900c55f8d8c104648852e2b63664e, the original commit that added
these line numbers. Does anyone know why it was done this way?
Added examples to `bool::then` and `bool::then_some` to show the distinction between the eager evaluation of `bool::then_some` and the lazy evaluation of `bool::then`.
Move and rename `SessionDiagnostic` & `SessionSubdiagnostic` traits and macros
After PR #101434, we want to:
- [x] Move `SessionDiagnostic` to `rustc_errors`.
- [x] Add `emit_` methods that accept `impl SessionDiagnostic` to `Handler`.
- [x] _(optional)_ Rename trait `SessionDiagnostic` to `DiagnosticHandler`.
- [x] _(optional)_ Rename macro `SessionDiagnostic` to `DiagnosticHandler`.
- [x] Update Rustc Dev Guide and Docs to reflect these changes. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/1460
Now I am having build issues getting the compiler to build when trying to rename the macro.
<details>
<summary>See diagnostics errors and context when building.</summary>
```
error: diagnostics should only be created in `SessionDiagnostic`/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/session_diagnostics.rs:13:10
|
13 | #[derive(DiagnosticHandler)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in this derive macro expansion
|
::: /Users/jhonny/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/synstructure-0.12.6/src/macros.rs:94:9
|
94 | / pub fn $derives(
95 | | i: $crate::macros::TokenStream
96 | | ) -> $crate::macros::TokenStream {
| |________________________________________- in this expansion of `#[derive(DiagnosticHandler)]`
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/lib.rs:10:9
|
10 | #![deny(rustc::diagnostic_outside_of_impl)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
And also this one:
```
error: diagnostics should only be created in `SessionDiagnostic`/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/session_diagnostics.rs:213:32
|
213 | let mut diag = handler.struct_span_err_with_code(
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
> **Note**
> Can't find where this message is coming from, because you can see in [this experimental branch](https://github.com/JhonnyBillM/rust/tree/experimental/trying-to-rename-session-diagnostic-macro) that I updated all errors and diags to say:
> error: diagnostics should only be created in **`DiagnosticHandler`**/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
> and not:
> error: diagnostics should only be created in **`SessionDiagnostic`**/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
</details>
I tried building the compiler in different ways (playing with the stages etc), but nothing worked.
## Question
**Do we need to build or do something different when renaming a macro and identifiers?**
For context, see experimental commit f2193a98b4 where the macro and symbols are renamed, but it doesn't compile.
This was previously limited to partial relro, citing issues on RHEL6,
but that's no longer a supported platform since #95026. We have long
been enabling full relro in RHEL7's own Rust builds for ppc64, without
trouble, so it should be fine to drop this workaround.
FIX - ambiguous Diagnostic link in docs
UPDATE - rename diagnostic_items to IntoDiagnostic and AddToDiagnostic
[Gardening] FIX - formatting via `x fmt`
FIX - rebase conflicts. NOTE: Confirm wheather or not we want to handle TargetDataLayoutErrorsWrapper this way
DELETE - unneeded allow attributes in Handler method
FIX - broken test
FIX - Rebase conflict
UPDATE - rename residual _SessionDiagnostic and fix LintDiag link
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```
