If an extern C function is defined as
```
extern "C" {
fn malloc(size: u32) -> *mut std::ffi::c_void;
}
```
on a 64-bit machine(ie. pointer sizes don't match), throw an undefined
behaviour.
Replace thread_local with generator resume arguments in box_region.
Fixes#68922.
Continuation of #70622. Added a short doc, hope it makes sense.
r? @jonas-schievink
Don't hold the predecessor cache lock longer than necessary
#71044 returns a `LockGuard` with the predecessor cache to callers of `Body::predecessors`. As a result, the lock around the predecessor cache could be held for an arbitrarily long time. This PR uses reference counting for ownership of the predecessor cache, meaning the lock is only ever held within `PredecessorCache::compute`. Checking this API for potential sources of deadlock is much easier now, since we no longer have to consider its consumers, only its internals.
This required removing `predecessors_for`, since there is no equivalent to `LockGuard::map` for `Arc` and `Rc`. I believe this could be emulated with `owning_ref::{Arc,Rc}Ref`, but I don't think it's necessary. Also, we continue to return an opaque type from `Body::predecessors` with the lifetime of the `Body`, not `'static`.
This depends on #71044. Only the last two commits are new.
r? @nikomatsakis
[breaking change] Disallow statics initializing themselves
fixes#71078
Self-initialization is unsound because it breaks privacy assumptions that unsafe code can make. In
```rust
pub mod foo {
#[derive(Debug, Copy, Clone)]
pub struct Foo {
x: (),
}
}
pub static FOO: foo::Foo = FOO;
```
unsafe could could expect that ony functions inside the `foo` module were able to create a value of type `Foo`.
Add all remaining `DefKind`s.
r? @eddyb or @Centril
~~I'm not sure if this is what you were thinking of. There are also a few places where I'm not sure what the correct choice is because I don't fully understand the meaning of some variants.~~
~~In general, it feels a bit odd to add some of these as `DefKind`s (e.g. `Arm`) because they don't feel like definitions. Are there things that it makes sense not to add?~~
Don't trigger while_let_on_iterator when the iterator is recreated every iteration
r? @phansch
Fixes#1654
changelog: Fix false positive in [`while_let_on_iterator`]
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #5408 (Downgrade match_bool to pedantic)
- #5505 (Avoid running cargo+internal lints when not enabled)
- #5516 (Add a note to the beta sections of release.md)
- #5517 (Deploy time travel)
- #5523 (Add lifetime test case for `new_ret_no_self`)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
changelog: rollup
Deploy time travel
Since not only commits to the master branch, but also tags and the beta branch are deployed, we have to be cautious which version of the deploy script is used. GHA always runs the workflow that is commited on the `ref`, that gets tested. For tagged commits. this is 6 weeks outdated workflows/scripts. To prevent this, this workflow first checks out the deploy.sh script, the website templates and all python scripts generating files for the website.
changelog: none
Downgrade match_bool to pedantic
I don't quite buy the justification in https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/. The justification is:
> It makes the code less readable.
In the Rust codebases I've worked in, I have found people were comfortable using `match bool` (selectively) to make code more readable. For example, initializing struct fields is a place where the indentation of `match` can work better than the indentation of `if`:
```rust
let _ = Struct {
v: {
...
},
w: match doing_w {
true => ...,
false => ...,
},
x: Nested {
c: ...,
b: ...,
a: ...,
},
y: if doing_y {
...
} else { // :(
...
},
z: ...,
};
```
Or sometimes people prefer something a bit less pithy than `if` when the meaning of the bool doesn't read off clearly from the condition:
```rust
if set.insert(...) {
... // ???
} else {
...
}
match set.insert(...) {
// set.insert returns false if already present
false => ...,
true => ...,
}
```
Or `match` can be a better fit when the bool is playing the role more of a value than a branch condition:
```rust
impl ErrorCodes {
pub fn from(b: bool) -> Self {
match b {
true => ErrorCodes::Yes,
false => ErrorCodes::No,
}
}
}
```
And then there's plain old it's-1-line-shorter, which means we get 25% more content on a screen when stacking a sequence of conditions:
```rust
let old_noun = match old_binding.is_import() {
true => "import",
false => "definition",
};
let new_participle = match new_binding.is_import() {
true => "imported",
false => "defined",
};
```
Bottom line is I think this lint fits the bill better as a pedantic lint; I don't think linting on this by default is justified.
changelog: Remove match_bool from default set of enabled lints
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #69041 (proc_macro: Stabilize `Span::resolved_at` and `Span::located_at`)
- #69813 (Implement BitOr and BitOrAssign for the NonZero integer types)
- #70712 (stabilize BTreeMap::remove_entry)
- #71168 (Deprecate `{Box,Rc,Arc}::into_raw_non_null`)
- #71544 (Replace filter_map().next() calls with find_map())
- #71545 (Fix comment in docstring example for Error::kind)
- #71548 (Add missing Send and Sync impls for linked list Cursor and CursorMut.)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Add missing Send and Sync impls for linked list Cursor and CursorMut.
Someone pointed out these to me, and i think it's indeed reasonable to add those impl.
r? @Amanieu
Implement BitOr and BitOrAssign for the NonZero integer types
This provides overloaded operators for `NonZero$Int | NonZero$Int`, `NonZero$Int | $Int`, and `$Int | NonZero$Int`. It also provides `BitOrAssign` where `self` is `NonZero$Int`, for symmetry.
It's a pretty small conceptual addition, but is good becasue but avoids a case where the operation is obviously sound, but you'd otherwise need unsafe to do it.
In crates trying to minimize `unsafe` usage, this is unfortunate and makes working with `NonZero` types often not worth it, even if the operations you're doing are clearly sound.
I've marked these as stable as I've been told in the past that trait impls are automatically stable. I'm happy to change it to unstable if this wasn't correct information.
I'm not entirely confident what version I should have put down, so I followed https://www.whatrustisit.com. Hopefully it's correct for this.
Apologies in advance if this has come up before, but I couldn't find it.
This was only used for linkage test cases, which is already covered by
the run-make-fulldeps/symbol-visibility test -- which fairly extensively makes
sure we're correctly exporting the right symbols at the right visibility (for
various Rust crate types).
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #71364 (Ignore -Zprofile when building compiler_builtins)
- #71494 (Fix span of while (let) expressions after lowering)
- #71517 ( Quick and dirty fix of the unused_braces lint)
- #71523 (Take a single root node in range_search)
- #71533 (Revert PR 70566 for const validation fix)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
