Fix sidebar scroll on mobile devices
Fixes#77942.
The issue was coming from the appearance/disappearance of the "wrapper" on the mobile devices web browsers, which triggers the "resize" event, calling the `hideSidebar` function is the JS code.
r? @jyn514
instrument-coverage: try our best to not ICE
instrument-coverage was ICEing for me on some code, in particular code
that had devirtualized paths from standard library. Instrument coverage
probably has no bussiness dictating which paths are valid and which
aren't so just feed it everything and whatever and let tooling deal with
other stuff.
For example, with this commit we can generate coverage hitpoints for
these interesting paths:
* `/rustc/.../library/core/lib.rs` – non-devirtualized path for libcore
* `/home/.../src/library/core/lib.rs` – devirtualized version of above
* `<inline asm>`, `<anon>` and many similar synthetic paths
Even if those paths somehow get to the instrumentation pass, I'd much
rather get hits for these weird paths and hope some of them work (as
would be the case for devirtualized path to libcore), rather than have
compilation fail entirely.
Deny broken intra-doc links in linkchecker
Since rustdoc isn't warning about these links, check for them manually.
This also fixes the broken links that popped up from the lint.
Suggest minimal subset features in `incomplete_features` lint
This tells users that we have a minimal subset feature of it and they can fix the lint warning without allowing it.
The wording improvement is helpful :)
Fixes#77913
resolve: further improvements to "try using the enum's variant" diagnostic
Follow-up on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77341#issuecomment-702738281.
This PR improves the diagnostic modified in #77341 to suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with fields (by suggesting with placeholders). In addition, the wording of the tuple-variant-only case is improved slightly.
I've not made further changes to the tuple-variant-only case (e.g. to only suggest variants with the correct number of fields) because I don't think I have enough information to do so reliably (e.g. in the case where there is an attempt to construct a tuple variant, I have no information on how many fields were provided; and in the case of pattern matching, I only have a slice of spans and would need to check for things like `..` in those spans, which doesn't seem worth it).
r? @estebank
stabilize union with 'ManuallyDrop' fields and 'impl Drop for Union'
As [discussed by @SimonSapin and @withoutboats](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55149#issuecomment-634692020), this PR proposes to stabilize parts of the `untagged_union` feature gate:
* It will be possible to have a union with field type `ManuallyDrop<T>` for any `T`.
* While at it I propose we also stabilize `impl Drop for Union`; to my knowledge, there are no open concerns around this feature.
In the RFC discussion, we also talked about allowing `&mut T` as another non-`Copy` non-dropping type, but that felt to me like an overly specific exception so I figured we'd wait if there is actually any use for such a special case.
Some things remain unstable and still require the `untagged_union` feature gate:
* Union with fields that do not drop, are not `Copy`, and are not `ManuallyDrop<_>`. The reason to not stabilize this is to avoid semver concerns around libraries adding `Drop` implementations later. (This is already not fully semver compatible as, to my knowledge, the borrow checker will exploit the non-dropping nature of any type, but it seems prudent to avoid further increasing the amount of trouble adding an `impl Drop` can cause.)
Due to this, quite a few tests still need the `untagged_union` feature, but I think the ones where I could remove the feature flag provide good test coverage for the stable part.
Cc @rust-lang/lang
instrument-coverage was ICEing for me on some code, in particular code
that had devirtualized paths from standard library. Instrument coverage
probably has no bussiness dictating which paths are valid and which
aren't so just feed it everything and whatever and let tooling deal with
other stuff.
For example, with this commit we can generate coverage hitpoints for
these interesting paths:
* `/rustc/.../library/core/lib.rs` – non-devirtualized path for libcore
* `/home/.../src/library/core/lib.rs` – devirtualized version of above
* `<inline asm>`, `<anon>` and many similar synthetic paths
Even if those paths somehow get to the instrumentation pass, I'd much
rather get hits for these weird paths and hope some of them work (as
would be the case for devirtualized path to libcore), rather than have
compilation fail entirely.
Prevent miscompilation in trivial loop {}
Ideally, we would want to handle a broader set of cases to fully fix the
underlying bug here. That is currently relatively expensive at compile and
runtime, so we don't do that for now.
Performance results indicate this is not a major regression, if at all, so it should be safe to land.
cc #28728
Add settings to rustdoc to use the system theme
This PR adds new settings to `rustdoc` to use the operating system color scheme.
`rustdoc` actually had [basic support for this](b1af43bc63/src/librustdoc/html/static/storage.js (L121)), but the setting wasn't visible and couldn't be set back once the theme was explicitly set by the user. It also didn't update if the operating system theme preference changed while viewing a page.
I'm using [this method](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Testing_media_queries#Receiving_query_notifications) to query and listen to changes to the `(prefers-color-scheme: dark)` media query. I kept the old method (based on `getComputedStyle`) as a fallback in case the user-agent doesn't support `window.matchMedia` (so like... [pretty much nobody](https://caniuse.com/?search=matchMedia)).
Since there's now more than one official ""dark"" theme in `rustdoc` (and also to support custom/third-party themes), the preferred dark and light themes can be configured in the settings page (the defaults are just "dark" and "light").
This is also my very first "proper" PR to Rust! Please let me know if I did anything wrong :).
Vxworks / Unix deduplication
`sys/vxworks` was almost entirely an (outdated) copy of `sys/unix`. I went through every file to check the differences and tried to figure out if they were simply outdated or intentional differences between `unix` and `vxworks`. Most of them did not have any `vxworks`-specific changes, so are deleted. I've added some minor `cfg(target_os = "vxworks")`-specific things to `sys/unix` to allow for deduplication.
Before this change, the vxworks target didn't compile because its outdated process implementation did not match the expected interface anymore. This also fixes that: `std` compiles again for `x86_64-wrs-vxworks`.
It's probably good to merge `sys/vxworks` entirely into `sys/unix`, but it might be better to to that in a follow-up PR.
`@rustbot` modify labels: +T-libs +C-cleanup
Remove arena's dependency on `rustc_data_structures`
`rustc_arena` currently has a dependency on `rustc_data_structures` because of a trivial "don't inline me" function. This PR copies that function and removes the dependency.
