Format `Struct { .. }` on one line even with `{:#?}`.
The result of `debug_struct("A").finish_non_exhaustive()` before this change:
```
A {
..
}
```
And after this change:
```
A { .. }
```
If there's any fields, the result stays unchanged:
```
A {
field: value,
..
}
fix 'const-stable since' for NonZeroU*::new_unchecked
For the unsigned `NonZero` types, `new_unchecked` was const-stable from the start with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50808. Fix the docs to accurately reflect that.
I think this `since` is also incorrect:
```rust
#[stable(feature = "from_nonzero", since = "1.31.0")]
impl From<$Ty> for $Int {
```
The signed nonzero types were only stabilized in 1.34, so that `From` impl certainly didn't exist before. But I had enough of digging through git histories after I figured out when `new_unchecked` became const-stable...^^
Replace all `fmt.pad` with `debug_struct`
This replaces any occurrence of:
- `f.pad("X")` with `f.debug_struct("X").finish()`
- `f.pad("X { .. }")` with `f.debug_struct("X").finish_non_exhaustive()`
This is in line with existing formatting code such as
1255053067/library/std/src/sync/mpsc/mod.rs (L1470-L1475)
Deprecate the core::raw / std::raw module
It only contains the `TraitObject` struct which exposes components of wide pointer. Pointer metadata APIs are designed to replace this: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81513
Add some #[inline(always)] to arithmetic methods of integers
I tried to add it only to methods which return results of intrinsics and don't have any branching.
Branching could made performance of debug builds (`-Copt-level=0`) worse.
Main goal of changes is allowing wider optimizations in `-Copt-level=1`.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75598
r? `@nagisa`
add lint deref_nullptr detecting when a null ptr is dereferenced
fixes#83856
changelog: add lint that detect code like
```rust
unsafe {
&*core::ptr::null::<i32>()
};
unsafe {
addr_of!(std::ptr::null::<i32>())
};
let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null()};
let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null_mut()};
unsafe {*(0 as *const i32)};
unsafe {*(core::ptr::null() as *const i32)};
```
```
warning: Dereferencing a null pointer causes undefined behavior
--> src\main.rs:5:26
|
5 | let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null()};
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| a null pointer is dereferenced
| this code causes undefined behavior when executed
|
= note: `#[warn(deref_nullptr)]` on by default
```
Limitation:
It does not detect code like
```rust
const ZERO: usize = 0;
unsafe {*(ZERO as *const i32)};
```
or code where `0` is not directly a literal
I tried to add it only to methods which return results of intrinsics and don't have any branching.
Branching could made performance of debug builds (`-Copt-level=0`) worse.
Main goal of changes is allowing wider optimizations in `-Copt-level=1`.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75598
Add note about reverting a workaround in the future
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.
Stabilize `peekable_peek_mut`
Resolves#78302. Also adds some documentation on `std::iter::Iterator::peekable()` regarding the new method.
The feature was added in #77491 in Nov' 20, which is recently, but the feature seems reasonably small. Never did a stabilization-pr, excuse my ignorance if there is a protocol I'm not aware of.
Improve links in inline code in `core::pin`.
## Context
So I recently opened #80720. That PR uses HTML-based `<code>foo</code>` syntax in place of `` `foo` `` for some inline code. It looks like usage of `<code>` tags in doc comments is without precedent in the standard library, but the HTML-based syntax has an important advantage:
You can write something like
```
<code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>
```
which becomes: <code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>, whereas with ordinary backtick syntax, you cannot create links for a substring of an inline code block.
## Problem
I recalled (from my own experience) that a way to partially work around this limitation is to do something like
```
[`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>`
```
which looks like this: [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` _(admitted, it looks even worse on GitHub than in `rustdoc`’s CSS)_.
[Box]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[`Box`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[Option]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
[`Option`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
[Pin]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/pin/struct.Pin.html "Pin"
[&mut]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.reference.html "mutable reference"
So I searched the standard library and found that e.g. the [std::pin](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/pin/index.html) module documentation uses this hack/workaround quite a bit, with types like <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> or <code>[Pin]<[&mut] T>></code>. Although the way they look like in this sentence is what I would like them to look like, not what they currently look.
### Status Quo
Here’s a screenshot of what it currently looks like:
With a few HTML-style code blocks, we can fix all the spacing issues in the above screenshot that are due usage of this hack/workaround of putting multiple code blocks right next to each other being used.
### after d3915c555ee016b11ce288e107e46dbab9f78c4f:
There’s still a problem of inconsistency. Especially in a sentence such as
> A [`Pin<P>`][Pin] where `P: Deref` should be considered as a "`P`-style pointer" to _[...]_
looks weird with the variable `P` having different colors (and `Deref` has a different color from before where it was a link, too). Or compare the difference of <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> vs [`Box<T>`][Box] where one time the variable is part of the link and the other time it isn’t.
_Note: Color differences show even **more strongly** when the ayu theme is used, while they are a bit less prominent in the light theme than they are in the dark theme, which is the one used for these screenshots._
This is why I’ve added the next commit
### after ceaeb249a3813a78bd81fa3890e27e8843a58262
pulling all the type parameters out of their links, and also the last commit with clearly visible changes
### after 87ac118ba3d0c8268e043fadbd63b51e06904795
where more links are added, removing e.g. the inconsistency with `Deref`’s color in e.g. `P: Deref` that I already mentioned above.
## Discussion
I am aware that this PR may very well be overkill. If for now only the first commit (plus the fix for the `Drop` link in e65385fbfa72995b27ec64aa54f330cf503dfc03, the link titles 684edf7a70d2e90466ae74e7a321670259bf3fd9 as far as they apply, and a few of the line-break changes) are wanted, I can reduce this PR to just those changes. I personally find the rendered result with all these changes very nice though. On the other hand, all these `<code>` tags are not very nice in the source code, I’ll admit.
Perhaps alternative solutions could be preferred, such as `rustdoc` support for merging subsequent inline code blocks so that all the cases that currently use workarounds rendered as [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` automatically become <code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code> without any need for further changes. Even in this case, having a properly formatted, better looking example in the standard library docs could help motivate such a change to `rustdoc` by prodiving an example of the expected results and also the already existing alternative (i.e. using `<code>`). On the other hand, `` [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` `` isn’t particularly nice-looking source code either. I’m not even sure if I wouldn’t actually find the version `<code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>` cleaner to read.
`@rustbot` modify labels: T-doc, T-rustdoc
Add more info for common trait resolution and async/await errors
* Suggest `Pin::new`/`Box::new`/`Arc::new`/`Box::pin` in more cases
* Point at `impl` and type defs introducing requirements on E0277
Stabilize cmp_min_max_by
I would like to propose cmp::{min_by, min_by_key, max_by, max_by_key}
for stabilization.
These are relatively simple and seemingly uncontroversial functions and
have been unchanged in unstable for a while now.
Closes: #64460
I would like to propose cmp::{min_by, min_by_key, max_by, max_by_key}
for stabilization.
These are relatively simple and seemingly uncontroversial functions and
have been unchanged in unstable for a while now.
