They were carried over from once_cell crate, but they are not entirely
correct (as miri now supports more things), and we don't run miri
tests for std, so let's just remove them.
Maybe one day we'll run miri in std, but then we can just re-install
these attributes.
Switch to intra-doc links in /src/sys/unix/ext/*.rs
Partial fix for #75080
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
r? @jyn514
These two links are not resolving to either `crate::fs::File...` or `fs::File...`
```
# unix/ext/fs.rs
27: /// [`File::read`]: ../../../../std/fs/struct.File.html#method.read
130: /// [`File::write`]: ../../../../std/fs/struct.File.html#method.write
```
docs(marker/copy): provide example for `&T` being `Copy`
### Edited 2020-08-16 (most recent)
In the current documentation about the `Copy` marker trait, there is a section
with examples of structs that can implement `Copy`. Currently there is no example for
showing that shared references (`&T`) are also `Copy`.
It is worth to have a dedicated example for `&T` being `Copy`, because shared
references are an integral part of the language and it being `Copy` is not as
intuitive as other types that share this behaviour like `i32` or `bool`.
The example picks up on the previous non-`Copy` struct and shows that
structs can be `Copy`, even when they hold a shared reference to a non-`Copy` type.
-----------------------------------------
### Edited 2020-08-02, 3:28 p.m.
I've just realized that it says "in addition to the **implementors listed below**", which makes this PR kind of "wrong", because `&T` is indeed in the "implementors listed below".
Maybe we can instead show an example with `&T` in the [When can my type be Copy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/marker/trait.Copy.html#when-can-my-type-be-copy) section.
What I really want to achieve is that it becomes more obvious that `&T` is also `Copy`, because, I think, it is very valuable to know and it wasn't obvious for me, until I read something about it in a forum post.
What do you think? I would create another PR for that.
**Please feel free to close this PR.**
-----------------------------------
### Original post
In the current documentation about the `Copy` marker trait, there is a section
about "additional implementors", which list additional implementors of the `Copy` trait.
The fact that shared references are also `Copy` is mixed with another point,
which makes it hard to recognize and make it seem not as important.
This clarifies the fact that shared references are also `Copy`, by mentioning it as a
separate item in the list of "additional implementors".
See also X-Link mem::{swap, take, replace}
Since it's easy to end up at one of these functions when you really wanted the other one, cross link them with descriptions of why you'd want to use them.
Don't panic in Vec::shrink_to_fit
We can help the compiler see that `Vec::shrink_to_fit` will never reach the panic case in `RawVec::shrink_to_fit`, just by guarding the call only for cases where the capacity is strictly greater. A capacity less than the length is only possible through an unsafe call to `set_len`, which would break the `Vec` invariants, so `shrink_to_fit` can just ignore that.
This removes the panicking code from the examples in both #71861 and #75636.
Move to intra doc links for ascii.rs and panic.rs
Helps with #75080.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
I also updated the doc to fix the wording in `AsciiExt` since it is now deprecated.
The two file are small changes so I bundled them together.
Some links could not be changed to make them work, I believe those are known issues with primitive types.
Add `as_uninit`-like methods to pointer types and unify documentation of `as_ref` methods
This adds a convenient method to retrieve a `&(mut) [MaybeUninit<T>]` from slice pointers (`*const [T]`, `*mut [T]`, `NonNull<[T]>`). See also https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/66#issuecomment-671789105.
~I'll add a tracking issue as soon as it's reviewed and CI passed.~
Tracking Issue: #75402
r? @RalfJung
Reference lang items during AST lowering
Fixes#60607 and fixes#61019.
This PR introduces `QPath::LangItem` to the HIR and uses it in AST lowering instead of constructing a `hir::Path` from a slice of symbols:
- Credit for much of this work goes to @matthewjasper, I basically just [rebased their earlier work](a227c706b7 (diff-c0f791ead38d2d02916faaad0f56f41d)).
- ~~Changes to Clippy might not be correct, they compile but attempting to run tests through `./x.py` produced failures which appeared spurious, so I didn't run any clippy tests.~~
- Changes to save analysis might not be correct - tests pass but I don't have a lot of confidence in those changes being correct.
- I've used `GenericBounds::LangItemTrait` rather than changing `PolyTraitRef`, as suggested by @matthewjasper [in this comment](a227c706b7 (r40107992)) but I'd prefer that be left for a follow-up.
- I've split things into smaller commits fairly arbitrarily to make the diff easier to review, each commit should compile but might not pass tests until the final commit.
r? @oli-obk
cc @matthewjasper
Fix example in `NonNull::as_uninit_slice`
Rename feature gate to "ptr_as_uninit"
Make methods more consistent with already stable methods
Make `pointer::as_uninit_slice` return an `Option`
Fix placement for `// SAFETY` section
Add `as_uninit_ref` and `as_uninit_mut` to pointers
Fix doctest
Update tracking issue
Fix doc links
Apply suggestions from review
Make wording about counterparts consistent
Fix doc links
Improve documentation
Fix doc-tests
Fix doc links ... again
Apply suggestions from review
Apply suggestions from Review
Apply suggestion from review to all affected files
Add missing words in safety sections in `as_uninit_slice_mut`
Fix safety-comment in `NonNull::as_uninit_slice_mut`
Move to intra-doc links for /library/core/src/any.rs
Helps with #75080.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
Known issues:
* Links from `core` to `std` (#74481):
* `[Box]: ../../std/boxed/struct.Box.html`
pin docs: add some forward references
@nagisa had some questions about pinning that were answered in the docs, which they did not realize because that discussion is below the examples. I still think it makes sense to introduce the examples before that discussion, since it give the discussion something concrete to refer to, but this PR adds some forward references so people don't think the examples conclude the docs.
@nagisa do you think this would have helped?
