Prefer projection candidates instead of param_env candidates for Sized predicates
Fixes#89352
Also includes some drive by logging and verbose printing changes that I found useful when debugging this, but I can remove this if needed.
This is a little hacky - but imo no more than the rest of `candidate_should_be_dropped_in_favor_of`. Importantly, in a Chalk-like world, both candidates should be completely compatible.
r? ```@nikomatsakis```
rustdoc: avoid many `Symbol` to `String` conversions.
Particularly when constructing file paths and fully qualified paths.
This avoids a lot of allocations, speeding things up on almost all
examples.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
I seem to recall that in general, it's best to request an allocation
with a size that's a power of 2. The low estimate of 5 was probably a
little too low as well.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #92045 (Don't fall back to crate-level opaque type definitions.)
- #92381 (Suggest `return`ing tail expressions in async functions)
- #92768 (Partially stabilize `maybe_uninit_extra`)
- #92810 (Deduplicate box deref and regular deref suggestions)
- #92818 (Update documentation for doc_cfg feature)
- #92840 (Fix some lints documentation)
- #92849 (Clippyup)
- #92854 (Use the updated Rust logo in rustdoc)
- #92864 (Fix a missing dot in the main item heading)
Failed merges:
- #92838 (Clean up some links in RELEASES)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Deduplicate box deref and regular deref suggestions
Remove the suggestion code special-cased for Box deref.
r? ```@camelid```
since you introduced the code in #90627
Partially stabilize `maybe_uninit_extra`
This covers:
```rust
impl<T> MaybeUninit<T> {
pub unsafe fn assume_init_read(&self) -> T { ... }
pub unsafe fn assume_init_drop(&mut self) { ... }
}
```
It does not cover the const-ness of `write` under `const_maybe_uninit_write` nor the const-ness of `assume_init_read` (this commit adds `const_maybe_uninit_assume_init_read` for that).
FCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63567#issuecomment-958590287.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Suggest `return`ing tail expressions in async functions
This PR fixes#92308.
Previously, the suggestion to `return` tail expressions (introduced in #81769) did not apply to `async` functions, as the suggestion checked whether the types were equal disregarding `impl Future<Output = T>` syntax sugar for `async` functions. This PR changes that in order to fix a potential papercut.
I'm not sure if this is the "right" way to do this, so if there is a better way then please let me know.
I amended an existing test introduced in #81769 to add a regression test for this, if you think I should make a separate test I will.
Don't fall back to crate-level opaque type definitions.
That would just hide bugs, as it works accidentally if the opaque type is defined at the crate level.
Only works after #90948 which worked by accident for our entire test suite.
Swift has specific syntax that desugars to `Option<T>` similar to our
`?` operator, which means that people might try to use it in Rust. Parse
it and gracefully recover.
Currently all generators are named with a `generator$N` suffix,
regardless of where they come from. This means an `async fn` shows up as
a generator in stack traces, which can be surprising to async
programmers since they should not need to know that async functions are
implementated using generators.
This change generators a different name depending on the generator kind,
allowing us to tell whether the generator is the result of an async
block, an async closure, an async fn, or a plain generator.
