Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #86330 (Change how edition based future compatibility warnings are handled)
- #86513 (Rustdoc: Do not list impl when trait has doc(hidden))
- #86592 (Use `#[non_exhaustive]` where appropriate)
- #86608 (chore(rustdoc): remove unused members of RenderType)
- #86624 (Update compiler-builtins)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Use `#[non_exhaustive]` where appropriate
Due to the std/alloc split, it is not possible to make `alloc::collections::TryReserveError::AllocError` non-exhaustive without having an unstable, doc-hidden method to construct (which negates the benefits from `#[non_exhaustive]`).
`@rustbot` label +C-cleanup +T-libs +S-waiting-on-review
Change how edition based future compatibility warnings are handled
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894 by updating how future compatibility lints work. This makes it more apparent that future compatibility warnings can happen for several different reasons.
For now `FutureCompatibilityReasons` are limited to three reasons, but we can easily add more.
This also updates the generated warning for FCW's that signal code that will error in a future edition. This makes the diagnostics between FCWs at edition boundaries more distinct from those not happening at an edition boundary.
r? ``@m-ou-se``
Use https for sourceforge during CI
I saw that we use http during CI opening up the CI process to on the wire tampering.
based on #86573
r? `@pietroalbini`
rustc_data_structures has a dependency on crossbeam-utils but never uses
it. It appears to have originally had this dependency in order to set
the "nightly" feature; however, its other dependencies use a different
version of crossbeam-utils, so this doesn't actually affect anything.
Furthermore, in current crossbeam-utils, the "nightly" feature has
become a no-op.
The sha-1 and md-5 packages contain crates named sha1 and md5,
respectively. This discrepancy makes it somewhat more challenging to
automate detection of unused crates. Explicitly rename the packages to
the names of the crates they contain, to simplify such detection.
Add `BuildHasher::hash_one` as unstable
Inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86140/files#diff-246941135168fbc44fce120385ee9c3156e08a1c3e2697985b56dcb8d728eedeR2416, where I wanted to write a quick test for a `Hash` implementation and it took more of a dance than I'd hoped.
It looks like this would be handy in hashtable implementations, too -- a quick look at hashbrown found two places where it needs to do the same dance:
6302512a8a/src/map.rs (L247-L270)
I wanted to get a "seems plausible" from a libs member before making a tracking issue, so random-sampling the intersection of highfive and governance gave me...
r? `@joshtriplett`
(As always, bikeshed away! And let me know if I missed something obvious again that I should have used instead.)
Don't lint :pat when re-parsing a macro from another crate.
`compile_macro` is used both when compiling the original definition in the crate that defines it, and to compile the macro when loading it when compiling a crate that uses it. We should only emit lints in the first case.
This adds a `is_definition: bool` to pass this information in, so we don't warn about things that only concern the definition site.
Fixes#86567
Even if the content from box is used in a sharef-ref context,
we capture the box entirerly.
This is motivated by:
1) We only capture data that is on the stack.
2) Capturing data from within the box might end up moving more data than
the user anticipated.
tidy: verify that test revisions with --target have associated needs-llvm-components directives
This ensures that people who tend to write `--target` `#[no_core]` tests don't miss specifying the `needs-llvm-components` directive. This is necessary for the test suite to pass when LLVM is compiled with a subset of components enabled.
While here I also took the opportunity to implement a more fine-grained handling of the ignore directives, so that they are evaluated for each revision, rather than for the entire test. With this even if people have `arm` component disabled, only the revision that depends on the arm component will not run.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82405
Otherwise something that ought to seemingly work like `//[x86]
needs-llvm-components: x86` or `//[nll_beyond]should-fail` do not get
evaluated properly.
