Allow references to interior mutable data behind a feature gate
supercedes #80373 by simply not checking for interior mutability on borrows of locals that have `StorageDead` and thus can never be leaked to the final value of the constant
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80384
r? `@RalfJung`
This silences the following clippy lints in ./x.py clippy:
many_single_char_names (there are a lot of warnings caused by stdarch)
collapsible_if (can reduce readability)
type_complexity
missing_safety_doc (there are almost 3K warnings issued)
too_many_arguments
needless_lifetimes (people want 'tcx lifetimes etc)
wrong_self_convention (warns about from_..(), to_..(), into_..().. fns that do or do not take self by reference.
Rustdoc: only report broken ref-style links once
This PR assigns the markdown `LinkType` to each parsed link and passes this information into the link collector.
If a link can't be resolved in `resolve_with_disambiguator`, the failure is cached for the link types where we only want to report the error once (namely `Shortcut` and `Reference`).
Fixes #77681
Rust prints "type `&A` is non-empty" even is A is empty.
This is the intended behavior, but can be confusing.
This commit adds a note to non-exhaustive pattern errors if they are a
reference to something uninhabited.
I did not add tests to check that the note is not shown for
non-references or inhabited references, because this is already done
in other tests.
Maybe the added test is superfluous, because
`always-inhabited-union-ref` already checks for this case.
This does not handle &&Void or &&&void etc. I could add those as special
cases as well and ignore people who need quadruple
references.
Fixes#78123
Clean up in `each_child_of_item`
This PR hopes to eliminate some of the surprising elements I encountered while reading the function.
- `macros_only` is checked against inside the loop body, but if it is `true`, the loop is skipped anyway
- only query `span` when relevant
- no need to allocate attribute vector
remove allow(incomplete_features) from std
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80349#issuecomment-753357123
> Now I am somewhat concerned that the standard library uses some of these features...
I think it is theoretically ok to use incomplete features in the standard library or the compiler if we know that there is an already working subset and we explicitly document what we have to be careful about. Though at that point it is probably better to try and split the incomplete feature into two separate ones, similar to `min_specialization`.
Will be interesting once `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` works well enough to imo be used in the compiler but not yet well enough to be removed from `INCOMPLETE_FEATURES`.
r? `@RalfJung`
Add suggestion for "ignore" doc code block
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30032.
This PR adds a suggestion to help users when they have a "ignore" doc code block which is invalid rust code.
r? `@jyn514`
At the `if` branch `filter` (the `let` binding) is `None` iff `filter` (the parameter) was `None`.
We can branch on the parameter, move the binding into the `if`, and the complexity of handling
`Option<Option<_>` largely dissolves.
rustdoc DocFragment rework
Kind of a follow-up of #80119.
A few things are happening in this PR. I'm not sure about the impact on perf though so I'm very interested about that too (if the perf is worse, then we can just close this PR).
The idea here is mostly about reducing the memory usage by relying even more on `Symbol` instead of `String`. The only issue is that `DocFragment` has 3 modifications performed on it:
1. Unindenting
2. Collapsing similar comments into one
3. "Beautifying" (weird JS-like comments handling).
To do so, I saved the information about unindent and the "collapse" is now on-demand (which is why I'm not sure the perf will be better, it has to be run multiple times...).
r? `@jyn514`
Fix search section position on small devices
Fixes#79526.
This is exactly the same issue fixed in 9c36491538 (in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79936) but applied to the search section. When the width becomes too small, the search input goes on its own line to get more space, making it go "under" the section following (so either "main" or "search"). The fix is to simply make the section go more under so that it doesn't go over the search input.
r? `@jyn514`
