Casual grepping revealed some places in the codebase (some of which
antedated `if let`'s December 2014 stabilization in c200ae5a) where we
were using a match with a `None => ()` arm where (in the present
author's opinion) an `if let` conditional would be more readable. (Other
places where matching to the unit value did seem to better express the
intent were left alone.)
It's likely that we don't care about making such trivial,
non-functional, sheerly æsthetic changes.
But if we do, this is a patch.
It turns out that the subsequent lines of the error message comment
should be aligned like this.
The "turns the corresponding compiler warning" language may not be
strictly the most accurate—a lint check isn't the same as a compiler
warning; it emits a compiler warning if it's set to the `warn` level—
but it may be worth glossing over such distinctions in favor of simple,
familar phrasings for the sake of pedagogy; thanks to Guillaume Gomez
for the wording suggestion.
Let's also fix up the introductory clauses of the sentences about how to
fix the error to put a little more emphasis on the fact that the
`forbid` setting was probably there for a reason.
Add explanations for E0503 and E0508.
(cannot use `..` because it was mutably borrowed, cannot move out of type `..`, a non-copy fixed-size array)
Part of #32777.
add a test case for issue #32031
I propose a test case to finish the fix for issue #32031. Please review this commit thoroughly, as I have never written a codegen test before.
r? @eddyb
rustdoc: Don't generate empty files for stripped items
We need to traverse stripped modules to generate redirect pages, but we shouldn't generate
anything else for them.
This now renders the file contents to a Vec before writing it to a file in one go. I think
that's probably a better strategy anyway.
Fixes: #34025
Remove linking and intrinsics code made dead by only supporting LLVM 3.7 and up
This is mostly based on Alex's throwaway comment:
> probably reject those that LLVM just doesn't support...
So I'm more than happy to adjust the PR based on how you thought this should look. Also happy to split it into two PRs, one for linking and one for intrinsics.
r? @alexcrichton
/cc @nagisa @brson
Treat `#[test]` like `#[cfg(test)]` in non-test builds
This PR treats `#[test]` like `#[cfg(test)]` in non-test builds. In particular, like `#[cfg(test)]`,
- `#[test]` nodes are stripped during `cfg` processing, and
- `#[test]` is disallowed on non-optional expressions.
Closes#33946.
r? @nrc
Visit statement and expression attributes in the AST visitor
Currently, these attributes are not visited, so they are not gated feature checked in the post expansion visitor. This only affects crates using `#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]`.
r? @nrc
