Documentation: Fix Stilted Language in Vec->Indexing
Problem
Language in the Vec->Indexing documentation sounds stilted due to incorrect word ordering: "... type allows to access values by index."
Solution
Reorder words in the Vec->Indexing documentation to flow better: "... type allows access to values by index." The phrase "allows access to" also matches other existing documentation.
Updated lines doc to include trailing carriage return note
Updated `str::lines` doc to include explicit info about (trailing) carriage returns.
Reference: #100311
Clarify behavior of inclusive bounds in BTreeMap::{lower,upper}_bound
It wasn’t quite clear to me how these methods would interpret inclusive bounds so I added examples for those.
Remove redundant example of `BTreeSet::iter`
The usage and that `Values returned by the iterator are returned in ascending order` are already demonstrated by the other example and the description, so I removed the useless one.
`redundant_closure` fixes
fixes#8548
A good chunk of the code is fixing false negatives. The old code banned any non late-bound regions from appearing in the callee's signature. The new version checks when the late-bound region is actually required.
changelog: Better track when a early-bound region appears when a late-bound region is required in `redundant_closure`.
changelog: Don't lint `redundant_closure` when the closure gives explicit types.
[rustc][data_structures] Simplify binary_search_slice.
Instead of using `binary_search_by_key`, it's possible to use `partition_point` to find the lower bound. This avoids the need to locate the leftmost matching entry separately.
It's also possible to use `partition_point` to find the upper bound, so I plan to send a separate PR for your consideration.
Rustdoc small cleanups
Each commit does some little cleanups:
* We had some `Res` comparisons in multiple places (and still do, but unless we use a macro, it's not possible to "merge" any further) so I moved it into a function.
* It was weird to have some utils function used everywhere in `visit_ast` so I instead moved it into `clean/utils.rs`.
* In HTML rendering, we had some write "issues":
* Multiple calls that could be merged into one.
* Some `write!` that could be `write_str`.
* We didn't use the new `format!` args much.
r? `@notriddle`
Make RPITITs inherit the `assumed_wf_types` of their parent method
... and then move the RPITIT well-formedness check to just use the regular logic of wfchecking an associated type.
---
We need to inherit the `assumed_wf_types` of the RPITIT's parent function in order for the given code to be considered well-formed:
```rust
trait Foo {
fn bar<'a, T>(_: &'a T) -> impl Iterator<Output = &'a T>;
}
```
Since for `&'a T` to be WF, we need `T: 'a`.
In order for this to work for late-bound lifetimes, we need to do some additional mapping of any late-bound lifetimes captured by these assumed wf types. This is because within the body of the function (and thus in the `assumed_wf_types`), they're represented as `ReFree` variants of the original late-bound lifetimes declared in the function's generics, but in the RPITIT's GAT, they're represented as "reified" `ReEarlyBound` vars (duplicated during opaque type lowering). Luckily, the mapping between these two is already [stored in the opaque](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_hir/hir/struct.OpaqueTy.html#structfield.lifetime_mapping).
Fixes#113796
Combining revisions with only-arch allows specifying
that a test only applies to a handful of targets.
This allows removing a large amount of repetition
in the test suite for tests that do not benefit.
The revisions are suboptimal for this for some tests,
so they aren't preferred in those cases.
Slightly more complicated: also give them appropriate names
that somewhat describe the cases they are trying to cover,
using information from PR chatter in rust-lang/rust#47158
Problem
Language in the Vec->Indexing documentation sounds stilted due to
incorrect word ordering: "... type allows to access values by index."
Solution
Reorder words in the Vec->Indexing documentation to flow better:
"... type allows access to values by index." The phrase "allows access to"
also matches other existing documentation.
Now that we use opaque pointers, ADTs can no longer be recursive, so we
do not need to name them. Previously, this would be necessary if you had
a struct like
```rs
struct Foo(Box<Foo>, u64, u64);
```
which would be represented with something like
```ll
%Foo = type { %Foo*, i64, i64 }
```
which is now just
```ll
{ ptr, i64, i64 }
```
TB: Redefine trigger condition for protectors
The Coq formalization revealed that as currently implemented, read accesses did not always commute.
Indeed starting from a lazily initialized `Active` protected tag, applying a foreign read then a child read produces `Frozen`, but child read then foreign read triggers UB (because the child read initializes _before_ the `Active -> Frozen`).
This reformulation of when protectors trigger fixes that issue:
- instead of `Active + foreign read -> Frozen` and `Active -> Frozen` when protected is UB
- we do `Active + foreign read -> if protected { Disabled } else { Frozen }`
There is already precedent for transitions being dependent on the presence of a protector (`Reserved + foreign read -> if protected { Frozen } else { Reserved }`), and this has the nice side-effect of simplifying the protector trigger condition to just an equality check against `Disabled` since now there is protector UB iff a protected tag becomes `Disabled`.
In order not to introduce an extra `if`, it was decided that `Disabled -> Disabled` would be UB when protected, which was not the case previously. This is merely a theoretical for now because a protected `Disabled` is unreachable in the first place.
The extra test is not directly related to this modification, but also checks things related to protectors and lazy initialization.
Gracefully handle ternary operator
Fixes#112578
~~May not be the best way to do this as it doesn't check for a single `:`, so it could perhaps appear even when the actual issue is just a missing semicolon. May not be the biggest deal, though?~~
Nevermind, got it working properly now ^^
