Rollup of 13 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #61026 (Tweak macro parse errors when reaching EOF during macro call parse)
- #61095 (Update cargo)
- #61096 (tidy: don't short-circuit on license error)
- #61107 (Fix a couple docs typos)
- #61110 (Revert edition-guide toolstate override)
- #61111 (Fixed type-alias-bounds lint doc)
- #61113 (Deprecate `FnBox`. `Box<dyn FnOnce()>` can be called directly, since 1.35)
- #61116 (Remove the incorrect warning from README.md)
- #61118 (Dont ICE on an attempt to use GAT without feature gate)
- #61121 (improve debug-printing of scalars)
- #61125 (Updated my mailmap entry)
- #61134 (Annotate each `reverse_bits` with `#[must_use]`)
- #61138 (Move async/await tests to their own folder)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Move async/await tests to their own folder
This moves run-pass and ui async/await tests to their own folder `src/test/ui/async-await` and organises some into subfolders. (It does not move rustdoc tests for async/await.)
I also did some drive-by cleaning up of issues/error code tests into their own folders (which already existed). These are in separate commits, so easy to separate out if that's more desirable.
r? @cramertj
tidy: don't short-circuit on license error
If there is more than one license error, tidy would only print the first
error. This changes it so that all license errors are printed.
Tweak macro parse errors when reaching EOF during macro call parse
Add detail on origin of current parser when reaching EOF, stop saying "found `<eof>`" and point at the end of macro calls.
Fix#27569.
Make place projections concrete.
**I'm not sure if we want this. I'm raising the PR for discussion**
Whilst doing some work on our Rust fork, I noticed the following:
Once upon a time (commit 9bd35c07c2) there were two kinds of
projection: one for places, and one for constants. It therefore made
sense to share the `Projection` struct for both. Although the different
use-cases used different concrete types, sharing was made possible by
type-parameterisation of `Projection`.
Since then, however, the usage of projections in constants has
disappeared, meaning that (forgetting lifetimes for a moment) the
parameterised type is only every instantiated under one guise. So it may
as well be a concrete type. Right?
What do people think? This is entirely untested, although it does check.
If we *don't* want this, then we should at least update the incorrect comment against `Projection`.
Thanks
Add Azure Pipelines configuration
Huge thanks to ＠johnterickson and ＠willsmythe for writing the initial config! ❤️
I applied some changes to the initial config and disabled most of the builders since we're not going to run all of them during the initial step for the evaluation.
[More details about our plans for the Azure Pipelines evaluation.](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/update-on-the-ci-investigation/10056)
r? ＠alexcrichton ＠kennytm
cc ＠rust-lang/infra ＠ethomson ＠rylev
- Add detail on origin of current parser when reaching EOF and stop
saying "found <eof>" and point at the end of macro calls
- Handle empty `cfg_attr` attribute
- Reword empty `derive` attribute error
Once upon a time (commit 9bd35c07c2) there were two kinds of
projection: one for places, and one for constants. It therefore made
sense to share the `Projection` struct for both. Although the different
use-cases used different concrete types, sharing was made possible by
type-parameterisation of `Projection`.
Since then, however, the usage of projections in constants has
disappeared, meaning that (forgetting lifetimes for a moment) the
parameterised type is only every instantiated under one guise. So it may
as well be a concrete type.
