Rollup of 18 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #59106 (Add peer_addr function to UdpSocket)
- #59170 (Add const generics to rustdoc)
- #59172 (Update and clean up several parts of CONTRIBUTING.md)
- #59190 (consistent naming for Rhs type parameter in libcore/ops)
- #59236 (Rename miri component to miri-preview)
- #59266 (Do not complain about non-existing fields after parse recovery)
- #59273 (some small HIR doc improvements)
- #59291 (Make Option<ThreadId> no larger than ThreadId, with NonZeroU64)
- #59297 (convert field/method confusion help to suggestions)
- #59304 (Move some bench tests back from libtest)
- #59309 (Add messages for different verbosity levels. Output copy actions.)
- #59321 (Unify E0109, E0110 and E0111)
- #59322 (Tweak incorrect escaped char diagnostic)
- #59323 (use suggestions for "enum instead of variant" error)
- #59327 (Add NAN test to docs)
- #59329 (cleanup: Remove compile-fail-fulldeps directory again)
- #59347 (Move one test from run-make-fulldeps to ui)
- #59360 (Add tracking issue number for `seek_convenience`)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
cleanup: Remove compile-fail-fulldeps directory again
It was already removed once in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56444, but was partially resurrected by rebase of some other PR.
Move some bench tests back from libtest
It doesn't make much sense to test these on rust-lang/libtest since they exercise the `#[bench]` macro which is part of rust-lang/rust.
This PR moves these tests back here.
r? @alexcrichton
Do not complain about non-existing fields after parse recovery
When failing to parse struct-like enum variants, the ADT gets recorded
as having no fields. Record that we have actually recovered during
parsing of this variant to avoid complaing about non-existing fields
when actually using it.
Fix#57361.
consistent naming for Rhs type parameter in libcore/ops
Rename RHS type parameter occurrences RHS->Rhs to make it consistent throughout files and follow naming conventions.
Add const generics to rustdoc
Split out from #53645. This work is a collaborative effort with @yodaldevoid.
The `FIXME`s are waiting on a refactor to `LazyConst`. I'll address these in a follow up, but I thought it would be better to implement the rest now to avoid bitrot.
r? @QuietMisdreavus
Add peer_addr function to UdpSocket
Fixes#59104
This is my first pull request to Rust, so opening early for some feedback.
My biggest question is: where do I add tests?
Any comments very much appreciated!
Refactor tools/build-mainfest
I saw some duplication in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58990 and got an itch... Will likely need to be rebased when that lands. Hopefully the PR should have zero semantic changes...
r? @alexcrichton
Point at coercion reason for `if` expressions without else clause if caused by return type
```
error[E0317]: if may be missing an else clause
--> $DIR/if-without-else-as-fn-expr.rs:2:5
|
LL | fn foo(bar: usize) -> usize {
| ----- found `usize` because of this return type
LL | / if bar % 5 == 0 {
LL | | return 3;
LL | | }
| |_____^ expected (), found usize
|
= note: expected type `()`
found type `usize`
= note: `if` expressions without `else` must evaluate to `()`
```
Fix#25228.
Add provided methods `Seek::{stream_len, stream_position}`
This adds two new, provided methods to the `io::Seek` trait:
- `fn stream_len(&mut self) -> Result<u64>`
- `fn stream_position(&mut self) -> Result<u64>`
Both are added for convenience and to improve readability in user code. Reading `file.stream_len()` is much better than to manually seek two or three times. Similarly, `file.stream_position()` is much more clear than `file.seek(SeekFrom::Current(0))`.
You can find prior discussions [in this internals thread](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-idea-extend-io-seek-with-convenience-methods-with-e-g-stream-len/9262). I think I addressed all concerns in that thread.
I already wrote three RFCs to add a small new API to libstd but I noticed that many public changes to libstd happen without an RFC. So I figured I can try opening a PR directly without going through RFCs first. After all, we do have rfcbot here too. If you think this change is too big to merge without an RFC, I can still close this PR and write an RFC.
