Later in this stack, as the nonzero_integers macro is going to be
responsible for producing a larger fraction of the API for the NonZero
integer types, it will need to receive a number of additional arguments
beyond the ones currently seen here.
Additional arguments, especially named arguments across multiple lines,
will turn out clearer if everything in one macro call is for the same
NonZero type.
This commit adopts a similar arrangement to what we do for generating
the API of the integer primitives (`impl u8` etc), which also generate a
single type's API per top-level macro call, rather than generating all
12 impl blocks for the 12 types from one macro call.
This way all the other macros defined in this module, such as
nonzero_leading_trailing_zeros, are available to call within the expansion of
nonzero_integers.
(Macros defined by macro_rules cannot be called from the same module above the
location of the macro_rules.)
In this commit the ability to call things like nonzero_leading_trailing_zeros is
not immediately used, but later commits in this stack will be consolidating the
entire API of NonZeroT to be generated through nonzero_integers, and will need
to make use of some of the other macros to do that.
[meta] Remove Zulip rustdoc nomination alert
There no longer exists the label <kbd>I-nominated</kbd>, it's no longer possible to trigger the Zulip nomination alert. Nowadays, there are separate <kbd>I-{team}-nominated</kbd> labels one for each team that make use of such a nomination system.
Since t-rustdoc has never really used this nomination system, I figured I should remove it outright. However, instead of that, I could create the label <kbd>I-rustdoc-nominated</kbd> and adjust the triagebot entry. Whatever you prefer.
r? GuillaumeGomez or rustdoc
Don't ICE when noting GAT bounds in `report_no_match_method_error`
We can encounter `BindingObligation`s from GATs that we should handle in `report_no_match_method_error`. I assume we can encounter them from methods, though I didn't really feel like wasting my time creating a repro.
Fixes#119942
Make `InferCtxtExt::could_impl_trait` more precise, less ICEy
The implementation for `InferCtxtExt::could_impl_trait` was very wrong. Along with being pretty poorly named, way too specific to ADTs, it was also doing impl substitution wrong -- this caused an ICE (#119915).
This PR generalizes that code, gives it a clearer name, makes it stop using the new trait solver (lol), and fixes some fallout bad suggestions that are made worse with the code fix.
Fixes#119915
Improve UEFI target docs
* Add a section showing exactly how to build a driver instead of an application
* Add links to the crates mentioned in the doc
CC `@dvdhrm`
Move personality implementation out of PAL
The module already follows the new convention described in #117276. This PR also includes a small fix in the tidy pal check, that was just an oversight in #117285.
store the segment name when resolution fails
Fixes#112672
The `find_cfg_stripped` does indeed get executed within `smart_resolve_report_errors`. However, this error is not reported as it is subsequently overridden by `parent_err`. (See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/late.rs#L3760)
This PR changes `last_segment` to `segment`, which stores the name of the failed resolution, and ensures that the result of `find_cfg_stripped` is also included in `parent_err`.
r? ```@Nilstrieb```
Suggest Upgrading Compiler for Gated Features
This PR addresses #117318
I have a few questions:
1. Do we want to specify the current version and release date of the compiler? I have added this in via environment variables, which I found in the code for the rustc cli where it handles the `--version` flag
a. How can I handle the changing message in the tests?
3. Do we want to only show this message when the compiler is old?
a. How can we determine when the compiler is old?
I'll wait until we figure out the message to bless the tests
Move platform modules into `sys::pal`
This is the initial step of #117276. `sys` just re-exports everything from the current `sys` for now, I'll move the implementations for the individual features one-by-one after this PR merges.
Taint `_` placeholder types in trait impl method signatures
We report an error right below for them, but that kind of broken type can cause subsequent ICEs.
fixes#119867
Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again
This follows from [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits/topic/projections.20on.20.28~.29const.20Trait.20.26.20.28~.29const.20assoc.20ty.20bounds).
Basically in my opinion, it makes sense to allow `~const` on associated type bounds again since they're quite useful even though we haven't implemented the proposed syntax `<Ty as ~const Trait>::Proj`/`<Ty as const Trait>::Proj` yet; that can happen as a follow-up.
This already allows more code to compile since `T::Assoc` where `T` is a type parameter and where the predicate `<T as ~const Trait>` is in the environment gets elaborated to (pseudo) `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`.
```rs
#[const_trait]
trait Trait {
type Assoc: ~const Trait;
fn func() -> i32;
}
const fn function<T: ~const Trait>() -> i32 {
T::Assoc::func()
}
```
`~const` associated type bounds also work together with `const` bounds:
```rs
struct Type<const N: i32>;
fn procedure<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::Assoc::func() }> { // `Trait` comes from above
Type
}
```
NB: This PR also starts allowing `~const` bounds in the generics and the where-clause of trait associated types since it's trivial to support them. However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful. Maybe we should continue to reject them?
For reference, it wouldn't make any sense to allow `~const Trait` in GACs (generic associated constants, `generic_const_items`) because they'd be absolutely useless (contrary to `const Trait`).
~~[``@]rustbot`` ping project-const-traits~~
r? project-const-traits
Varargs support for system ABI
This PR allows functions with the `system` ABI to be variadic (under the `extended_varargs_abi_support` feature tracked in #100189). On x86 windows, the `system` ABI is equivalent to `C` for variadic functions. On other platforms, `system` is already equivalent to `C`.
Fixes#110505
Overhaul `-Ztreat-err-as-bug`
It's current behaviour is surprising, in a bad way. This also makes the implementation more complex than it needs to be.
r? `@oli-obk`
Add explicit `none()` value variant in check-cfg
This PR adds an explicit none value variant in check-cfg values: `values(none())`.
Currently the only way to define the none variant is with an empty `values()` which means that if someone has a cfg that takes none and strings they need to use two invocations: `--check-cfg=cfg(foo) --check-cfg=cfg(foo, values("bar"))`.
Which would now be `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values(none(),"bar"))`, this is simpler and easier to understand.
`--check-cfg=cfg(foo)`, `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values())` and `--check-cfg=cfg(foo, values(none()))` would be equivalent.
*Another motivation for doing this is to make empty `values()` actually means no-values, but this is orthogonal to this PR and adding `none()` is sufficient in it-self.*
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
