add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap
add TestFloatParse to tools for bootstrap, I am not sure this is what the issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128012 discussion wants.
try-job: aarch64-apple
Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function
It's confusing to `?` a future of a result in a sync function. We have a suggestion to `.await` it if we're in an async function, but not a sync function. Note that this is the case for sync functions, at least.
Let's be a bit more vague about a fix, since it's somewhat context dependent. For example, you could block on it, or you could make your function asynchronous. 🤷
Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`
For the `Existential*` ones, we have to do some adjustment to the args list to deal with the missing `Self` type, so we introduce a `debug_assert_existential_args_compatible` function to the interner as well.
Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro
On Windows, the following code can fail if the `OUT_DIR` environment variable is a [verbatim path](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/path/enum.Prefix.html) (i.e. begins with `\\?\`):
```rust
include!(concat!(env!("OUT_DIR"), "/src/repro.rs"));
```
This is because verbatim paths treat `/` literally, as if it were just another character in the file name.
The good news is that the standard library already has code to fix this. We can simply use `components` to normalize the path so it works as intended.
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
feat: render docs from aliased type when type has no docs
Trying to close#18344
- [x] ~Find the docs by traversing upwards if the type itself has none but aliasing for another type that might have.~
- [x] Show docs from aliased type.
- [x] Showing description that we are displaying documentation for different definition in hover box.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Dominator-order information is only needed for coverage graphs, and is easy
enough to collect by just traversing the graph again.
This avoids wasted work when computing graph dominators for any other purpose.
epoll_ctl: throw unsupported error on unsupported opcode
`@tiif` this is a somewhat suspicious "return -1" without setting the `errno` -- what is the reasoning behind that?
Throwing a clear error seems better to me.
coverage: Make counter creation handle node/edge counters more uniformly
Similar to #130380, this is another round of small improvements informed by my ongoing attempts to overhaul coverage counter creation.
One of the big benefits is getting rid of the awkward special-case that would sometimes attach an edge counter to a node instead. That was needed by the code that chooses which out-edge should be given a counter expression, but we can avoid that by making the corresponding check a little smarter.
I've also renamed several things to be simpler and more consistent, which should help with future changes.
