Bootstrap x86_64 musl by itself
It should slightly reduce build time and prepares ground for musl native tests.
NOTE: I haven't tested artifacts yet (only the build).
Can I have double try?
r? @alexcrichton
Add a tidy check for files with over 3,000 lines
Files with a large number of lines can cause issues in GitHub (e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60015) and also tend to be indicative of opportunities to refactor into less monolithic structures.
This adds a new check to tidy to warn against files that have more than 3,000 lines, as suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60015#issuecomment-483868594. (This number was chosen fairly arbitrarily as a reasonable indicator of size.) This check can be ignored with `// ignore-tidy-filelength`.
Existing files with greater than 3,000 lines currently ignore the check, but this helps us spot when files are getting too large. (We might try to split up all files larger than this in the future, as in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60015).
Rollup of 12 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #59734 (Prevent failure in case no space left on device in rustdoc)
- #59940 (Set cfg(test) when rustdoc is running with --test option)
- #60134 (Fix index-page generation)
- #60165 (Add Pin::{into_inner,into_inner_unchecked})
- #60183 (Chalkify: Add builtin Copy/Clone)
- #60225 (Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring.)
- #60247 (Implement Debug for Place using Place::iterate)
- #60259 (Derive Default instead of new in applicable lint)
- #60267 (Add feature-gate for f16c target feature)
- #60284 (Do not allow const generics to depend on type parameters)
- #60285 (Do not ICE when checking types against foreign fn)
- #60289 (Make `-Z allow-features` work for stdlib features)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Derive Default instead of new in applicable lint
Closes#60181
As far as I can see, at least within the `src/librustc_lint` directory this is the only place this is applicable.
Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring.
In the `for $pat in $expr $block` desugaring we end with a `{ let _result = $match_expr; _result }` construct which makes `for` loops into a terminating scope and affects drop order. The construct was introduced in year 2015 by @pnkfelix in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/21984.
This PR replaces the construct with `hir::ExprKind::Use(P<hir::Expr>)` which is equivalent semantically but should hopefully be less costly in terms of compile time performance (to be determined).
This is extracted out of 91b0abdfb2 from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59288 for easier review and so that the perf implications wrt. `for`-loops can be measured.
r? @oli-obk
Add Pin::{into_inner,into_inner_unchecked}
These functions are useful for unsafe code that needs to temporarily pull smart pointers out of the `Pin`, e.g. [the change that inspired them](b4361780fa (diff-1a4e0ba4d1b539412ca576411ec6c7c2R258)) is taking a `Pin<Box<dyn Future>>`, turning it into a `*mut dyn Future` via `Box::into_raw(unsafe { Pin::into_inner_unchecked(pin) })` then later dropping this via `drop(Pin::from(Box::from_raw(ptr)))`. This can be accomplished today via `{ let ptr = unsafe { Pin::get_unchecked_mut(pin.as_mut()) } as *mut dyn Future; mem::forget(pin); ptr }`, but this is far more complicated and loses out on the symmetry of using `Box::into_raw` and `Box::from_raw`.
I'll extend the documentation on what guarantees `into_inner_unchecked` needs to uphold once I get some feedback on whether this API is wanted or not.
r? @withoutboats
Fix index-page generation
Fixes#60096.
The minifier was minifying crates name in `searchIndex` key position, which was a bit problematic for multiple reasons.
r? @rust-lang/rustdoc
Set cfg(test) when rustdoc is running with --test option
Following a [discussion on twitter](https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1117091914199785473), I proposed this change. What do you think about it?
r? @QuietMisdreavus
cc @BurntSushi
Improved error message when type must be bound due to generator.
Fixes#58930.
Keen to get some feedback - is this as minimal as we can get it or is there an existing visitor I could repurpose?
