Turn non_fmt_panic into a future_incompatible edition lint.
This turns the `non_fmt_panic` lint into a future_incompatible edition lint, so it becomes part of the `rust_2021_compatibility` group. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894.
This lint produces both warnings about semantical changes (e.g. `panic!("{{")`) and things that will become hard errors (e.g. `panic!("{")`). So I added a `explain_reason: false` that supresses the default "this will become a hard error" or "the semantics will change" message, and instead added a note depending on the situation. (cc `@rylev)`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Fix `future_prelude_collision` false positive
Fixes#86633
The lint for checking if method resolution of methods named `try_into` will fail in 2021 edition previously would fire on all inherent methods, however for inherent methods that consume `self`, this takes priority over `TryInto::try_into` due to being inherent, while trait method and methods that take `&self` or `&mut self` don't take priority, and thus aren't affected by this false positive.
This fix is rather simple: simply checking if the inherent method doesn't auto-deref or auto-ref (and thus takes `self`) and if so, prevents the lint from firing.
Add support for OpenSSL 3.0.0
This updates the `openssl` and `openssl-sys` crates to support building
the toolchain with system libraries up to OpenSSL 3.0.0. This does not
affect the static version used via `openssl-src` in CI builds.
ref: https://github.com/sfackler/rust-openssl/pull/1264
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #86206 (Fix type checking of return expressions outside of function bodies)
- #86358 (fix pretty print for `loop`)
- #86568 (Don't dist miri or rust-analyzer on stable or beta.)
- #86683 (⬆️ rust-analyzer)
- #86687 (Allow anyone to set `perf-regression` label)
- #86688 (Add a regression test for issue-65384)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't dist miri or rust-analyzer on stable or beta.
This prevents miri and rust-analyzer from being built for "dist" or "install" on the stable/beta channels. It is a nightly-only tool and should not be included.
Closes#86286
Fix type checking of return expressions outside of function bodies
This pull request fixes#86188. The problem is that the current code for type-checking `return` expressions stops if the `return` occurs outside of a function body, while the correct behavior is to continue type-checking the return value expression (otherwise an ICE happens later on because variables declared in the return value expression don't have a type).
Also, I have noticed that it is sometimes not obvious why a `return` is outside of a function body; for instance, in the example from #86188 (which currently causes an ICE):
```rust
fn main() {
[(); return || {
let tx;
}]
}
```
I have changed the error message to also explain why the `return` is considered outside of the function body:
```
error[E0572]: return statement outside of function body
--> ice0.rs:2:10
|
1 | / fn main() {
2 | | [(); return || {
| |__________^
3 | || let tx;
4 | || }]
| ||_____^ the return is part of this body...
5 | | }
| |_- ...not the enclosing function body
```
Fix typo in libs tracking issue template
Currently, the libs tracking issue template expands FCP as "final commenting period". Everywhere else, including in [the official explanation](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/), it's expanded as "final comment period". That version also sounds a bit better. Accordingly, this PR changes the tracking issue template to use that version.
`@rustbot` label A-meta T-libs-api
r? `@m-ou-se`
Reserve prefixed identifiers and literals (RFC 3101)
This PR denies any identifiers immediately followed by one of three tokens `"`, `'` or `#`, which is stricter than the requirements of RFC 3101 but may be necessary according to the discussion at [Zulip].
[Zulip]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/268952-edition-2021/topic/reserved.20prefixes/near/238470099
The tracking issue #84599 says we'll add a feature gate named `reserved_prefixes`, but I don't think I can do this because it is impossible for the lexer to know whether a feature is enabled or not. I guess determining the behavior by the edition information should be enough.
Fixes#84599
2229: Capture box completely in move closures
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.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/50
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Revert revert of constness in #86003
Re-constify `mem::swap`, `mem::replace`, `ptr::write` which were marked as not `const` in #86003
Once the checks pass, this should solve #86236
