Do not collect tokens for doc comments
Doc comment is a single token and AST has all the information to re-create it precisely.
Doc comments are also responsible for majority of calls to `collect_tokens` (with `num_calls == 1` and `num_calls == 0`, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78736).
(I also moved token collection into `fn parse_attribute` to deduplicate code a bit.)
r? `@Aaron1011`
rustc_target: Move target env "gnu" from `linux_base` to `linux_gnu_base`
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77729.
Changes the target spec hierarchy for Linux from
```
linux_base
├── linux_musl_base
└── linux_uclibc_base
```
where `linux_base` is really `linux_gnu_base` and the inheriting targets replace target env "gnu" with "musl"/"uclibc" to
```
linux_base
├── linux_gnu_base
├── linux_musl_base
└── linux_uclibc_base
```
which is slightly less confusing (I think).
Support inlining diverging function calls
The existing heuristic does penalize diverging calls to some degree, but since
it never inlined them previously it might need some further modifications.
Additionally introduce storage markers for all temporaries created by
the inliner. The temporary introduced for destination rebrorrow, didn't
use them previously.
Add flags customizing behaviour of MIR inlining
* `-Zinline-mir-threshold` to change the default threshold.
* `-Zinline-mir-hint-threshold` to change the threshold used by
functions with inline hint.
Having those as configurable flags makes it possible to experiment with with
different inlining thresholds and substantially increase test coverage of MIR
inlining when used with increased thresholds (for example, necessary to test
#78844).
look at assoc ct, check the type of nodes
an example where types matter are function objects, see the added test which previously passed.
Now does a shallow comparison of unevaluated constants.
r? ```@oli-obk```
BTreeMap: split off most code of append
To complete #78056, move the last single-purpose pieces of code out of map.rs into a separate module. Also, tweaked documentation and safeness - I doubt think this code would be safe if the iterators passed in wouldn't be as sorted as the method says they should be - and bounds on MergeIterInner.
r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum```
Support enable/disable sanitizers/profiler per target
This PR add options under `[target.*]` of `config.toml` which can enable or disable sanitizers/profiler runtime for corresponding target.
If these options are empty, the global options under `[build]` will take effect.
Fix#78329
Duration::zero() -> Duration::ZERO
In review for #72790, whether or not a constant or a function should be favored for `#![feature(duration_zero)]` was seen as an open question. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73544#issuecomment-691701670 an invitation was opened to either stabilize the methods or propose a switch to the constant value, supplemented with reasoning. Followup comments suggested community preference leans towards the const ZERO, which would be reason enough.
ZERO also "makes sense" beside existing associated consts for Duration. It is ever so slightly awkward to have a series of constants specifying 1 of various units but leave 0 as a method, especially when they are side-by-side in code. It seems unintuitive for the one non-dynamic value (that isn't from Default) to be not-a-const, which could hurt discoverability of the associated constants overall. Elsewhere in `std`, methods for obtaining a constant value were even deprecated, as seen with [std::u32::min_value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.u32.html#method.min_value).
Most importantly, ZERO costs less to use. A match supports a const pattern, but const fn can only be used if evaluated through a const context such as an inline `const { const_fn() }` or a `const NAME: T = const_fn()` declaration elsewhere. Likewise, while https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73544#issuecomment-691949373 notes `Duration::zero()` can optimize to a constant value, "can" is not "will". Only const contexts have a strong promise of such. Even without that in mind, the comment in question still leans in favor of the constant for simplicity. As it costs less for a developer to use, may cost less to optimize, and seems to have more of a community consensus for it, the associated const seems best.
r? ```@LukasKalbertodt```
Majority of targets use "unknown" vendor and changing it from "unknown" to omitted doesn't make sense.
From the LLVM docs (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html#target-triple):
>Most of the time it can be omitted (and Unknown) will be assumed, which sets the defaults for the specified architecture.
>When a parameter is not important, it can be omitted, or you can choose unknown and the defaults will be used. If you choose a parameter that Clang doesn’t know, like blerg, it’ll ignore and assume unknown
The discussion seems to have resolved that this lint is a bit "noisy" in
that applying it in all places would result in a reduction in
readability.
A few of the trivial functions (like `Path::new`) are fine to leave
outside of closures.
The general rule seems to be that anything that is obviously an
allocation (`Box`, `Vec`, `vec![]`) should be in a closure, even if it
is a 0-sized allocation.
