Fnty args rustdoc
Fixes#44570.
cc @QuietMisdreavus
cc @rust-lang/dev-tools
Considering the impact on the `hir` libs, I'll put @eddyb as reviewer.
r? @eddyb
As discovered in #44538 ARMv6 devices may or may not support unaligned memory accesses. ARMv6
Linux *seems* to have no problem with unaligned accesses but this is because the kernel is stepping
in to fix each unaligned memory access -- this incurs in a performance penalty.
This commit enforces aligned memory accesses on all our in-tree ARM targets that may be used with
ARMv6 devices. This should improve performance of Rust programs on ARMv6 devices. For the record,
clang also applies this attribute when targeting ARMv6 devices that are not running Darwin or
NetBSD.
LLDB's output may be None instead of '', and that will cause type
mismatch when normalize_whitespace() expects a string instead of
None. This commit simply ensures we do pass '' even if the output
is None.
This commit is an implementation of LLVM's ThinLTO for consumption in rustc
itself. Currently today LTO works by merging all relevant LLVM modules into one
and then running optimization passes. "Thin" LTO operates differently by having
more sharded work and allowing parallelism opportunities between optimizing
codegen units. Further down the road Thin LTO also allows *incremental* LTO
which should enable even faster release builds without compromising on the
performance we have today.
This commit uses a `-Z thinlto` flag to gate whether ThinLTO is enabled. It then
also implements two forms of ThinLTO:
* In one mode we'll *only* perform ThinLTO over the codegen units produced in a
single compilation. That is, we won't load upstream rlibs, but we'll instead
just perform ThinLTO amongst all codegen units produced by the compiler for
the local crate. This is intended to emulate a desired end point where we have
codegen units turned on by default for all crates and ThinLTO allows us to do
this without performance loss.
* In anther mode, like full LTO today, we'll optimize all upstream dependencies
in "thin" mode. Unlike today, however, this LTO step is fully parallelized so
should finish much more quickly.
There's a good bit of comments about what the implementation is doing and where
it came from, but the tl;dr; is that currently most of the support here is
copied from upstream LLVM. This code duplication is done for a number of
reasons:
* Controlling parallelism means we can use the existing jobserver support to
avoid overloading machines.
* We will likely want a slightly different form of incremental caching which
integrates with our own incremental strategy, but this is yet to be
determined.
* This buys us some flexibility about when/where we run ThinLTO, as well as
having it tailored to fit our needs for the time being.
* Finally this allows us to reuse some artifacts such as our `TargetMachine`
creation, where all our options we used today aren't necessarily supported by
upstream LLVM yet.
My hope is that we can get some experience with this copy/paste in tree and then
eventually upstream some work to LLVM itself to avoid the duplication while
still ensuring our needs are met. Otherwise I fear that maintaining these
bindings may be quite costly over the years with LLVM updates!
Fix TcpStream::local_addr docs example code
The local address's port is not 8080 in this example, that's the remote peer address port. On my machine, the local address is different every time, so I've changed `assert_eq` to only test the IP address
Provides a reasonable interface for Box::from_raw implementation.
Does not get around the requirement of mem::transmute for converting
back and forth between Unique and Box.
A few pretty-printers were returning a quoted string from their
to_string method. It's preferable in gdb to return a lazy string and to
let gdb handle the display by having a "display_hint" method that
returns "string" -- it lets gdb settings (like "set print ...") work, it
handles corrupted strings a bit better, and it passes the information
along to IDEs.
Previously the constant index was reported as `[x of y]` or `[-x of y]` where
`x` was the offset and `y` the minimum length of the slice. The minus sign
wasn't in the right case since for `&[_, x, .., _, _]`, the error reported was
`[-1 of 4]`, and for `&[_, _, .., x, _]`, the error reported was `[2 of 4]`.
This commit fixes the sign so that the indexes 1 and -2 are reported, and
remove the ` of y` part of the message to make it more succinct.
fix logic error in #44269's `prune_cache_value_obligations`
We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not
obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix#43132. Because
of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its
original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master.
Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now
(I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before
we land this PR on nightly?
This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise
attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to
be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I
think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually
give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference
variables and filter everything else out.
We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not
obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix#43132. Because
of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its
original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master.
Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now
(I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before
we land this PR on nightly?
This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise
attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to
be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I
think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually
give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference
variables and filter everything else out.
Implement `and_modify` on `Entry`
## Motivation
`Entry`s are useful for allowing access to existing values in a map while also allowing default values to be inserted for absent keys. The existing API is similar to that of `Option`, where `or` and `or_with` can be used if the option variant is `None`.
The `Entry` API is, however, missing an equivalent of `Option`'s `and_then` method. If it were present it would be possible to modify an existing entry before calling `or_insert` without resorting to matching on the entry variant.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44733.
replace libc::res_init with res_init_if_glibc_before_2_26
The previous workaround for gibc's res_init bug is not thread-safe on
other implementations of libc, and it can cause crashes. Use a runtime
check to make sure we only call res_init when we need to, which is also
when it's safe. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43592.
~This PR is returning an InvalidData IO error if the glibc version string fails to parse. We could also have treated that case as "not glibc", and gotten rid of the idea that these functions could return an error. (Though I'm not a huge fan of ignoring error returns from `res_init` in any case.) Do other folks agree with these design choices?~
I'm pretty new to hacking on libstd. Is there an easy way to build a toy rust program against my changes to test this, other than doing an entire `sudo make install` on my system? What's the usual workflow?
Improve resolution of associated types in declarative macros 2.0
Make various identifier comparisons for associated types (and sometimes other associated items) hygienic.
Now declarative macros 2.0 can use `Self::AssocTy`, `TyParam::AssocTy`, `Trait<AssocTy = u8>` where `AssocTy` is an associated type of a trait `Trait` visible from the macro. Also, `Trait` can now be implemented inside the macro and specialization should work properly (fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/40847#issuecomment-310867299).
r? @jseyfried or @eddyb
