Introduce an option for disabling deduplication of diagnostics
With the intent of using it in UI tests (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67122).
The option is boolean (`-Z deduplicate-diagnostics=yes/no`) and can be specified multiple times with later values overriding earlier values (`-Z deduplicate-diagnostics=no -Z deduplicate-diagnostics=yes` == `-Z deduplicate-diagnostics=yes`), so it can be set in a hierarchical way, e.g. UI testing infra may disable the deduplication by default with specific tests being able to enable it back.
* Removes unnecessary feature flag from track_caller test.
* Tests of panic internals no longer need to explicitly construct Location.
* Add #![warn(const_err)] to retain-never-const per @oli-obk.
* Add track_caller test with diverging function.
Remove unused `#[link_name = "m"]` attributes
These were perhaps supposed to be `#[link(name = "m")]` but linking libm should be handled by the libc crate anyway.
They should have triggered a compile error: #47725
tweak wording of mismatched delimiter errors
This PR improves the wording of the "incorrect delimiter" error messages. Here's a quick rationale:
- *"un-closed" -> "unclosed"*: "unclosed" is valid English, so there's no need to hyphenate the prefix. This should be pretty uncontroversial, I think.
- *"close delimiter" -> "closing delimiter"*: In my anecdotal experience, I've always heard "closing delimiter" or "closing parenthesis". In addition, the codebase already uses this terminology in comments and function names more than "close delimiter", which could indicate that it's more intuitive.
- "incorrect delimiter" -> "mismatched delimiter": "Incorrect delimiter" is vague; why is it incorrect? "mismatched" clearly indicates why the delimiter is causing the error.
r? @estebank
Implement uncommon_codepoints lint.
Part of #55467 . The checks of `$crate` and `{{root}}` are very unfortunate. But i'm not sure where they belongs to.
Nix reexports from `rustc_span` in `syntax`
Remove reexports `syntax::{source_map, symbol, edition}` and use `rustc_span` paths directly.
r? @petrochenkov
Add a test for #37333
The test checks that we reuse the CGU of a crate when the implementation
details of an `extern crate` have changed.
Signed-off-by: Michal Terepeta <michal.terepeta@gmail.com>
no longer promote non-pattern const functions
This is trying to pack-pedal a bit on promotion feature creep, as proposed by @eddyb [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/issues/19#issuecomment-472799062): possibly, a sane subset of `const fn` that we could promote are those that are just constructors -- the same subset that we might want to allow in pattern position at some point.
So, this removes the `rustc_promotable` attribute from the three functions they identified that do not fit this pattern. The first step is to run crater to see if there is code in the wild that relies on this being promotable.
r? @oli-obk
Suggest calling method when first argument is `self`
Closes: #66782
I've explored different approaches for this MR but I think the most straightforward is the best one.
I've tried to find out if the methods for given type exist (to maybe have a better suggestion), but we don't collect them anywhere and collecting them is quite problematic. Moreover, collecting all the methods would require rewriting big part of the code and also could potentially include performance degradation, which I don't think is necessary for this simple case.
