Inline hot part of PatStack::head_ctor
When building rustc with `-Codegen-units=1` this inline hint ensures
that obtaining already initialized head constructor does not involve
a function call overhead and reduces the instruction count in
match-stress-enum-check full benchmark from 11.9G to 9.8G.
It shouldn't have significant impact on the currently default
configuration where it reflects existing inlining decisions.
I left some of them so this change doesn't balloon in size and because
removing the RefCell in `DocContext.resolver` would require compiler
changes.
Thanks to `@jyn514` for making this a lot easier with #82020!
BTreeMap: gather and decompose reusable tree fixing functions
This is kind of pushing it as a standalone refactor, probably only useful for #81075 (or similar).
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
MIR-OPT: Pass to deduplicate blocks
This pass finds basic blocks that are completely equal,
and replaces all uses with just one of them.
```bash
$ RUSTC_LOG=rustc_mir::transform::deduplicate_blocks ./x.py build --stage 2 | grep "SUCCESS: Replacing: " > log
...
$ cat log | wc -l
23875
```
upper_case_acronyms: move lint from style to pedantic lint group
The lint does point out inconsistency with the Rust naming convention,
but the fact that rustc does not warn about the inconsistency by default
means that clippy probably should not warn by default either.
changelog: move upper_case_acronyms lint from style to pedantic group.
The lint does point out inconsistency with the Rust naming convention,
but the fact that rustc does not warn about the inconsistency by default
means that clippy probably should not warn by default either.
changelog: move upper_case_acronyms lint from style to pedantic group.
Inconsistent struct constructor
fixes: #6352
r? `@matthiaskrgr`
I added the lint that checks for the struct constructors where the order of the field init shorthands is inconsistent with that in the struct definition.
changelog: Add style lint: `inconsistent_struct_constructor`
Fix sizes of repr(C) enums on hexagon
Enums on hexagon use a smallest size (but at least 1 byte) that fits all
the enumeration values. This is unlike many other ABIs where enums are
at least 32 bits.
Fixes#82100
improve UnsafeCell docs
Sometimes [questions like this come up](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-lang.2Fwg-unsafe-code-guidelines/topic/UnsafeCells.20as.20raw.20pointers) because the UnsafeCell docs say "it's the only legal way to obtain aliasable data that is considered mutable". That is not entirely correct, since raw pointers also provide that option. So I propose we focus the docs on the interaction of `UnsafeCell` and *shared references* specifically, which is really where they are needed.
remove redundant option/result wrapping of return values
If a function always returns `Ok(something)`, we can return `something` directly and remove the corresponding error handling in the callers.
clippy::unnecessary_wraps
Make "missing field" error message more natural
```rust
struct A {
x: i32,
y: i32,
z: i32,
}
fn main() {
A { };
}
```
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y`, `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y`, `z`
```
This error is now:
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y` and `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y` and `z`
```
I thought it looked nicer and more natural this way. Also, if there is >3 fields missing, there is an "and" as well ("missing \`x\`, \`y\`, \`z\` *and* 1 other field"), but for <=3 there is not. As such it improves consistency too.
As for the implementation, originally I ended up with a chunky `push_str` algorithm but then I figured I could just do the formatting manually since it's just 3 field names at maximum. It is comparatively readable.
As a sidenote, one thing I was wondering about is, isn't there more cases where you have a list of things like field names? Maybe this whole thing can at some point later be made into a more general function to be used in multiple areas.
Provide NonZero_c_* integers
I'm pretty sure I am going want this for #73125 and it seems like an
omission that would be in any case good to remedy.
<strike>Because the raw C types are in `std`, not `core`, to achieve this we
must export the relevant macros from `core` so that `std` can use
them. That's done with a new `num_internals` perma-unstable feature.
The macros need to take more parameters for the module to get the
types from and feature attributes to use.
I have eyeballed the docs output for core, to check that my changes to
these macros have made no difference to the core docs output.</strike>
Add internal `collect_into_array[_unchecked]` to remove duplicate code
Unlike the similar PRs #69985, #75644 and #79659, this PR only adds private functions and does not propose any new public API. The change is just for the purpose of avoiding duplicate code.
Many array methods already contained the same kind of code and there are still many array related methods to come (e.g. `Iterator::{chunks, map_windows, next_n, ...}`, `[T; N]::{cloned, copied, ...}`, ...) which all basically need this functionality. Writing custom `unsafe` code for each of those doesn't seem like a good idea. I added two functions in this PR (and not just the `unsafe` version) because I already know that I need the `Option`-returning version for `Iterator::map_windows`.
This is closely related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81615. I think that all options listed in that issue can be implemented using the function added in this PR. The only instance where `collect_array_into` might not be general enough is when the caller want to handle incomplete arrays manually. Currently, if `iter` yields fewer than `N` items, `None` is returned and the already yielded items are dropped. But as this is just a private function, it can be made more general in future PRs.
And while this was not the goal, this seems to lead to better assembly for `array::map`: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/75qKTa (CC ``@JulianKnodt)``
Let me know what you think :)
CC ``@matklad`` ``@bstrie``
Rustdoc gui tests
This is a reopening of #70533.
For this first version, there will be no screenshot comparison. Also, a big change compared to the previous version: the tests are now hosted in the rust repository directly. Since there is no image, it's pretty lightweight to say the least.
So now, only remains the nodejs script to run the tests and the tests themselves. Just one thing is missing: where should I put the documentation for these tests? I'm not sure where would be the best place for that. The doc will contain important information like the documentation of the framework used and how to install it (`npm install browser-ui-test`, but still needs to be put somewhere so no one is lost).
We'd also need to install the package when running the CI too. For now, it runs as long as we have nodejs installed, but I think we don't it to run in all nodejs targets?
cc `@jyn514`
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
When a tail expression isn't unit, we previously always suggested adding
a trailing `;` to turn it into a statement. This suggestion isn't
appropriate for any expression that doesn't have side-effects, as the
user will have likely wanted to call something else or do something with
the resulting value, instead of just discarding it.
Some newcomers are confused by the behavior of tail expressions,
interpreting that "leaving out the `;` makes it the return value".
To help them go in the right direction, suggest using `return` instead
when applicable.
[intra-doc links] Don't check feature gates of items re-exported across crates
It should be never break another crate to re-export a public item.
Note that this doesn't check the feature gate at
*all* for other crates:
- Feature-gates aren't currently serialized, so the only way to check
the gate is with ad-hoc attribute checking.
- Checking the feature gate twice (once when documenting the original
crate and one when documenting the current crate) seems not great.
This should still catch using the feature most of the time though, since
people tend to document their own crates.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82284.
r? `@Manishearth`
Enums on hexagon use a smallest size (but at least 1 byte) that fits all
the enumeration values. This is unlike many other ABIs where enums are
at least 32 bits.
