- Fix#26968 by noting the difference between ".." and "_" more explicitly
- Change one of the examples to show the match-all behaviour of ".."
- Merge "Ignoring variants" and "Ignoring bindings" sections into the latter
r? @steveklabnik
Clarifications for those new to Rust and Cargo:
* It's a good idea to get rid of the original `main.exe` in project root
* Slight clarification on the use of `main.rs` vs `lib.rs`
* Clarify that the TOML file needs to be in project root
This test case has been removed a while ago because it allegedly was broken. But I don't think it is (at least I couldn't reproduce any failure on Linux). Let's give it another chance `:)`
After #26694, the overloaded operator and "impl not known at method lookup time" cases started triggering the lint.
I've also added checks for overloaded autoderef and method calls via paths (i.e. `T::method()`).
All new 8 test cases did not trigger the lint before #26694.
r? @huonw
Fixes#25022
This adapts the deriving mechanism to not repeat bounds for the same type parameter. To give an example: for the following code:
```rust
#[derive(Clone)]
pub struct FlatMap<I, U: IntoIterator, F> {
iter: I,
f: F,
frontiter: Option<U::IntoIter>,
backiter: Option<U::IntoIter>,
}
```
the latest nightly generates the following impl signature:
```rust
impl <I: ::std::clone::Clone,
U: ::std::clone::Clone + IntoIterator,
F: ::std::clone::Clone>
::std::clone::Clone for FlatMap<I, U, F> where
I: ::std::clone::Clone,
F: ::std::clone::Clone,
U::IntoIter: ::std::clone::Clone,
U::IntoIter: ::std::clone::Clone
```
With these changes, the signature changes to this:
```rust
impl <I, U: IntoIterator, F> ::std::clone::Clone for FlatMap<I, U, F> where
I: ::std::clone::Clone,
F: ::std::clone::Clone,
U::IntoIter: ::std::clone::Clone
```
(Nothing in the body of the impl changes)
Note that the second impl is more permissive, as it doesn't have a `Clone` bound on `U` at all. There was a compile-fail test that failed due to this. I don't understand why we would want the old behaviour (and nobody on IRC could tell me either), so please tell me if there is a good reason that I missed.
This removes some of the more casual language.
The only outright goofiness I couldn't bear to remove is "these modules are the bedrock upon which all of Rust is forged, and they have mighty names like `std::slice` and `std::cmp`", which I believe the greatest sentence I have ever created.
Only `make -j4` takes ~50 mins
`make check` bumps it up to ~1hr 30min
Travis seems more than happy to let this happen.
Time limits appear to be meaningless.
Similar to the previous PR, it's easy to tell how much your PR definitely builds by checking the current logs or just considering how long it's been building for.
- Fix#26968 by noting the difference between ".." and "_" more explicitly
- Change one of the examples to show the match-all behaviour of ".."
- Merge "Ignoring variants" and "Ignoring bindings" sections into the latter
part of #24407
I'm not sure whether I should be trying to explain the general rule in the E0210 explanation or just point people to the RFC. However, if we go with the latter option I think that the RFC will need to be revised slightly, since it is not quite as gentle as I would like.
Also, the link to RFC 1023 is not the correct one (it should be https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1023-rebalancing-coherence.md), but the correct one is too long. I'm aware of @michaelsproul's PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/26290 from awhile back, but it doesn't seem to be working. Has there not been a new snapshot yet?
#27360 removed a padding field full of uint8_t's, but didn't remove
the use. This didn't get picked up presumably because (a) bors
doesn't have any BSD builders, and/or (b) #[cfg]'d out blocks don't
get linted.
```
rustc: x86_64-unknown-freebsd/stage1/lib/rustlib/x86_64-unknown-freebsd/lib/liblibc
src/liblibc/lib.rs:1099:42: 1099:49 error: unused import, #[deny(unused_imports)] on by default
src/liblibc/lib.rs:1099 use types::common::c99::{uint8_t, uint32_t, int32_t};
^~~~~~~
error: aborting due to previous error
fatal runtime error: Could not unwind stack, error = 159555904
```
