The `Unpin` bound was originally added in #56939 following the
recommendation of @withoutboats in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55766#issue-378417538
That comment does not give explicit justification for why the bound
should be added. The relevant context was:
> [ ] Remove `impl<P> Unpin for Pin<P>`
>
> This impl is not justified by our standard justification for unpin
> impls: there is no pointer direction between `Pin<P>` and `P`. Its
> usefulness is covered by the impls for pointers themselves.
>
> This futures impl (link to the impl changed in this PR) will need to
> change to add a `P: Unpin` bound.
The decision to remove the unconditional impl of `Unpin for Pin` is
sound (these days there is just an auto-impl for when `P: Unpin`). But,
I think the decision to also add the `Unpin` bound for `impl Future` may
have been unnecessary. Or if that's not the case, I'd be very interested
to have the argument for why written down somewhere. The bound _appears_
to not be needed, since the presence of a `Pin<P>` should indicate that
it's safe to project to `Pin<&mut P::Target>` just like for
`Pin::as_mut`.
may not -> might not
may not -> might not
"may not" has two possible meanings:
1. A command: "You may not stay up past your bedtime."
2. A fact that's only sometimes true: "Some cities may not have bike lanes."
In some cases, the meaning is ambiguous: "Some cars may not have snow
tires." (do the cars *happen* to not have snow tires, or is it
physically impossible for them to have snow tires?)
This changes places where the standard library uses the "description of
fact" meaning to say "might not" instead.
This is just `std::vec` for now - if you think this is a good idea I can
convert the rest of the standard library.
Adjust documentation links for slice::make_ascii_*case
The documentation for the functions `slice::to_ascii_lowercase` and `slice::to_ascii_uppercase` contain the suggestion
> To lowercase the value in-place, use `make_ascii_lowercase`
however the link to the suggested method takes you to the page for `u8`, rather than the method of that name on the same page.
rustc_target: Avoid unwraps when adding linker flags
These `unwrap`s assume that some linker flags were already added by `*_base::opts()` methods, but that's doesn't necessarily remain the case when we are reducing the number of flags hardcoded in targets, as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83587 shows.
r? `@nagisa`
Instruct LLVM that binary_search returns a valid index
This allows removing bound checks when the return value of `binary_search` is used to index into the slice it was call on. I also added a codegen test for this, not sure if it's the right thing to do (I didn't find anything on the dev guide), but it felt so.
linker: Use `--as-needed` by default when linker supports it
Do it in a centralized way in `link.rs` instead of individual target specs.
Majority of relevant target specs were already passing it.
resolve: Partially unify early and late scope-relative identifier resolution
Reuse `early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` instead of a chunk of code in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` doing the same job.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`/`visit_scopes` had to be slightly extended to be able to 1) start from a specific module instead of the current parent scope and 2) report one deprecation lint.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` still doesn't support walking through "ribs", that part is left in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` (moreover, I'm pretty sure it's buggy, but that's a separate issue, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52389 at least).
"may not" has two possible meanings:
1. A command: "You may not stay up past your bedtime."
2. A fact that's only sometimes true: "Some cities may not have bike lanes."
In some cases, the meaning is ambiguous: "Some cars may not have snow
tires." (do the cars *happen* to not have snow tires, or is it
physically impossible for them to have snow tires?)
This changes places where the standard library uses the "description of
fact" meaning to say "might not" instead.
This is just `std::vec` for now - if you think this is a good idea I can
convert the rest of the standard library.
Always preserve `None`-delimited groups in a captured `TokenStream`
Previously, we would silently remove any `None`-delimiters when
capturing a `TokenStream`, 'flattenting' them to their inner tokens.
This was not normally visible, since we usually have
`TokenKind::Interpolated` (which gets converted to a `None`-delimited
group during macro invocation) instead of an actual `None`-delimited
group.
However, there are a couple of cases where this becomes visible to
proc-macros:
1. A cross-crate `macro_rules!` macro has a `None`-delimited group
stored in its body (as a result of being produced by another
`macro_rules!` macro). The cross-crate `macro_rules!` invocation
can then expand to an attribute macro invocation, which needs
to be able to see the `None`-delimited group.
2. A proc-macro can invoke an attribute proc-macro with its re-collected
input. If there are any nonterminals present in the input, they will
get re-collected to `None`-delimited groups, which will then get
captured as part of the attribute macro invocation.
Both of these cases are incredibly obscure, so there hopefully won't be
any breakage. This change will allow more agressive 'flattenting' of
nonterminals in #82608 without losing `None`-delimited groups.
Improve fs error open_from unix
Consistency for #79399
Suggested by JohnTitor
r? `@JohnTitor`
Not user if the error is too long now, do we handle long errors well?
rustdoc: Use diagnostics for error when including sources
This error probably almost never happens, but we should still use the
diagnostic infrastructure. My guess is that the error was added back
before rustdoc used the rustc diagnostic infrastructure (it was all
`println!` and `eprintln!` back then!) and since it likely rarely occurs
and this code doesn't change that much, no one thought to transition it
to using diagnostics.
Note that the old error was actually a warning (it didn't stop the rest
of doc building). It seems very unlikely that this would fail without
the rest of the doc build failing, so it makes more sense for it to be a
hard error.
The error looks like this:
error: failed to render source code for `src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs`: "bar": foo
--> src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs:3:1
|
3 | / #![crate_name = "foo"]
4 | |
5 | | //! This is the "start" of the 'document'! How'd you know that "it's" ...
6 | | //!
... |
22 | | //! I say "don't smart-punct me -- please!"
23 | | //! ```
| |_______^
I wasn't sure how to trigger the error, so to create that message I
temporarily made rustdoc always emit it. That's also why it says "bar"
and "foo" instead of a real error message.
Note that the span of the diagnostic starts at line 3 because line 1 of
that file is a (non-doc) comment and line 2 is a blank line.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
update array missing `IntoIterator` msg
fixes#82602
r? ```@estebank``` do you know whether we can use the expr span in `rustc_on_unimplemented`? The label isn't too great rn
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See #67364.)
Derive Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
This derives Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
Fix Debug implementation for RwLock{Read,Write}Guard.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print `"<locked>"` unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
MutexGuard had this problem too: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57702
ExitStatus: print "exit status: {}" rather than "exit code: {}" on unix
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit
code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can
tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.)
This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier
names in the Rust stdlib.
It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.htmlhttps://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html
Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and
a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename
`std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or
something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably
most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and
system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust
has this wrong terminology.
So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have
already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation.
This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs
which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the
exit status string, except perhaps in tests.
format macro argument parsing fix
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
---
r? ```@estebank```
Generalize and inline slice::fill specializations
This makes the memset specialization applicable to more types. And since the code now lives in a generic method it is also eligible for cross-crate inlining which should fix#83235
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's
any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive
implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual
implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that
the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print
"<locked>" unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the
other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
Add IEEE 754 compliant fmt/parse of -0, infinity, NaN
This pull request improves the Rust float formatting/parsing libraries to comply with IEEE 754's formatting expectations around certain special values, namely signed zero, the infinities, and NaN. It also adds IEEE 754 compliance tests that, while less stringent in certain places than many of the existing flt2dec/dec2flt capability tests, are intended to serve as the beginning of a roadmap to future compliance with the standard. Some relevant documentation is also adjusted with clarifying remarks.
This PR follows from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1074, and closes#24623.
The most controversial change here is likely to be that -0 is now printed as -0. Allow me to explain: While there appears to be community support for an opt-in toggle of printing floats as if they exist in the naively expected domain of numbers, i.e. not the extended reals (where floats live), IEEE 754-2019 is clear that a float converted to a string should be capable of being transformed into the original floating point bit-pattern when it satisfies certain conditions (namely, when it is an actual numeric value i.e. not a NaN and the original and destination float width are the same). -0 is given special attention here as a value that should have its sign preserved. In addition, the vast majority of other programming languages not only output `-0` but output `-0.0` here.
While IEEE 754 offers a broad leeway in how to handle producing what it calls a "decimal character sequence", it is clear that the operations a language provides should be capable of round tripping, and it is confusing to advertise the f32 and f64 types as binary32 and binary64 yet have the most basic way of producing a string and then reading it back into a floating point number be non-conformant with the standard. Further, existing documentation suggested that e.g. -0 would be printed with -0 regardless of the presence of the `+` fmt character, but it prints "+0" instead if given such (which was what led to the opening of #24623).
There are other parsing and formatting issues for floating point numbers which prevent Rust from complying with the standard, as well as other well-documented challenges on the arithmetic level, but I hope that this can be the beginning of motion towards solving those challenges.
