Impl Default for PhantomPinned
`PhantomPinned` is just a marker type, with an obvious default value (the only value). So I can't think of a reason not to do this. Sure, it's used in exotic situations with unsafe code. But the people writing that code can decide for themselves if they can derive `Default`, and in many situations the derived impl will make sense:
```rust
#[derive(Default)]
struct NeedsPin {
marker: PhantomPinned,
buf: [u8; 1024],
ptr_to_data: Option<*const u8>,
}
```
Stabilize `IpAddr::is_ipv4` and `is_ipv6` as const
Insta-stabilize the methods `is_ipv4` and `is_ipv6` of `std::net::IpAddr` as const, in the same way as [PR#76198](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76198).
Possible because of the recent stabilization of const control flow.
Part of #76225 and #76205.
Insta-stabilize the methods `is_ipv4` and `is_ipv6` of `IpAddr`.
Possible because of the recent stabilization of const control flow.
Also adds a test for these methods in a const context.
BTreeMap: swap the names of NodeRef::new and Root::new_leaf
#78104 preserved the name of Root::new_leaf to minimize changes, but the resulting names are confusing.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Add test for eval order for a+=b
Yes, the order of evaluation *does* change depending on the types of
the operands. Cursed, I know.
I've elected to place this test into `expr/compound-assignment` creating
both the `expr` directory and the `compound-assignment` directory. I
plan in a future PR to also move the `if` directory and the loose `if`
tests into `expr/if` and other similar cleanups of the `test/ui`
directory.
Future work: Test more than just `+=`, but all operators. I don't know
if using a macro to generate these tests cases would be okay or not,
but it'd be boilerplatey without it. I'm also confident you cannot
change the evaluation order of one operator without changing all of
them.
Future work: Additionally, test more than just `i32 += i32` for the
primitive version. I don't actually know the full set of primitive
implementations, but I imagine there's enough to cause a combinatorial
explosion with the previous future work item. Somewhere on the order of
one to two hundred individual functions.
BTreeMap: address namespace conflicts
Fix an annoyance popping up whenever synchronizing the test cases with a version capable of miri-track-raw-pointers.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Stabilize refcell_take
Tracking Issue: #71395
``@KodrAus`` nominated this for FCP, so here's a PR!
I've never made a stabilization PR, so please mention if there's anything I can improve, thanks.
Stabilize alloc::Layout const functions
Stabilizes #67521. In particular the following stable methods are stabilized as `const fn`:
* `size`
* `align`
* `from_size_align`
Stabilizing `size` and `align` should not be controversial as they are simple (usize and NonZeroUsize) fields and I don't think there's any reason to make them not const compatible in the future. That being true, the other methods are trivially `const`. The only other issue being returning a `Result` from a `const fn` but this has been made more usable by recent stabilizations.
Split each iterator adapter and source into individual modules
This PR creates individual modules for each iterator adapter and iterator source.
This is done to enhance the readability of corresponding modules (`adapters/mod.rs` and `sources.rs`) which were hard to navigate and read because of lots of repeated lines (e.g.: `adapters/mod.rs` was 3k lines long). This is also in line with some adapters which already had their own modules (`Flatten`, `FlatMap`, `Chain`, `Zip`, `Fuse`).
This PR also makes `Take`s adapter fields private (I have no idea why they were `pub(super)` before).
r? ``@LukasKalbertodt``
Add f{32,64}::is_subnormal
The docs recommend that you use dedicated methods instead of calling `classify` directly, although there isn't actually a way of checking if a number is subnormal without calling classify. There are dedicated methods for all other forms, excluding `is_zero` (which is just `== 0.0` anyway).
Consolidate exhaustiveness-related tests
I hunted for tests that only exercised the match exhaustiveness algorithm and regrouped them. I also improved integer-range tests since I had found them lacking while hacking around.
The interest is mainly so that one can pass `--test-args patterns` and catch most relevant tests.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #78670 (Remove FIXME comment in some incremental test suite)
- #79292 (Fix typo in doc comment for report_too_many_hashes)
- #79300 (Prevent feature information to be hidden if it's on the impl directly)
- #79302 (Add regression test for issue 73899)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Small grammar, punctuation, and code style improvements to docs
changelog: Made small grammar, punctuation, and code style improvements to docs
I recently found some places in rust-lang/rust that had lists without spaces after commas, which led me to look for more places, which led me over here to find:
- Some similar lists in code examples that could use spaces after commas to be idiomatic Rust style
- Some lists in documentation text that didn't have spaces after commas, needed an Oxford comma (fight me), or were otherwise misformatted
- Some other grammar improvements in the area of the other changes
These changes should only be in user-facing documentation or output.
Yes, the order of evaluation *does* change depending on the types of
the operands. Cursed, I know.
I've elected to place this test into `expr/compound-assignment` creating
both the `expr` directory and the `compound-assignment` directory. I
plan in a future PR to also move the `if` directory and the loose `if`
tests into `expr/if` and other similar cleanups of the `test/ui`
directory.
Future work: Test more than just `+=`, but all operators. I don't know
if using a macro to generate these tests cases would be okay or not,
but it'd be boilerplatey without it. I'm also confident you cannot
change the evaluation order of one operator without changing all of
them.
Future work: Additionally, test more than just `i32 += i32` for the
primitive version. I don't actually know the full set of primitive
implementations, but I imagine there's enough to cause a combinatorial
explosion with the previous future work item. Somewhere on the order of
one to two hundred individual functions.
Stabilize clamp
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44095
Clamp has been merged and unstable for about a year and a half now. How do we feel about stabilizing this?
More consistently use spaces after commas in lists in docs
This PR changes instances of lists that didn't use spaces after commas, like `vec![1,2,3]`, to `vec![1, 2, 3]` to be more consistent with idiomatic Rust style (the way these were looks strange to me, especially because there are often lists that *do* use spaces after the commas later in the same code block 😬).
I noticed one of these in an example in the stdlib docs and went looking for more, but as far as I can see, I'm only changing those spots in user-facing documentation or rustc output, and the changes make no semantic difference.
Give a better error when rustdoc tests fail
- Run the default rustdoc against the current rustdoc
- Diff output recursively
- Colorize diff output
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78750.
## Resolved questions
- Should this be opt-in instead of on by default?
+ No
- Should this call through to `delta`? That's not a very common program to have installed, but I'm not sure how to do diffs after the fact. Maybe `compiletest` can take a `--syntax-highlighter` parameter or something?
+ I decided to use `delta` if available and `diff --color` otherwise. It prints a warning if delta isn't installed so you know you can get nicer diffs
## Open questions.
- What version of rustdoc would this compare against? Ideally it would compare against `$(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)` - maybe that's feasible if we install those artifacts from CI?
- Does it always make sense to compare the tests? Especially for new tests, I'm not sure how useful it would be ... but then again, one of the questions I want to know most as a reviewer is 'did it break before?'.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum`
