This leads to a lot of simplifications, as most code doesn't actually need to know about the specific lifetime/type data; rather, it's concerned with properties like name, index and def_id.
Improve eager type resolution error message
This PR improves the span of eager resolution type errors referring to indexing and field access to use the base span rather than the whole expression.
Also a "note: type must be known at this point" is added where in the past we emitted the "type must be known at this context" error, so that early failures can be differentiated and will hopefully be less surprising.
Fixes#50692 (or at least does the best we can for the moment)
r? @estebank
Migrate the toolstate update bot to rust-highfive
Rationale: Only members of the rust-lang organization can mention its teams. That means #50434 has no effect if we are still using @kennytm-githubbot.
Rewrite docs for `std::ptr`
This PR attempts to resolve#29371.
This is a fairly major rewrite of the `std::ptr` docs, and deserves a fair bit of scrutiny. It adds links to the GNU libc docs for various instrinsics, adds internal links to types and functions referenced in the docs, adds new, more complex examples for many functions, and introduces a common template for discussing unsafety of functions in `std::ptr`.
All functions in `std::ptr` (with the exception of `ptr::eq`) are unsafe because they either read from or write to a raw pointer. The "Safety" section now informs that the function is unsafe because it dereferences a raw pointer and requires that any pointer to be read by the function points to "a valid vaue of type `T`".
Additionally, each function imposes some subset of the following conditions on its arguments.
* The pointer points to valid memory.
* The pointer points to initialized memory.
* The pointer is properly aligned.
These requirements are discussed in the "Undefined Behavior" section along with the consequences of using functions that perform bitwise copies without requiring `T: Copy`. I don't love my new descriptions of the consequences of making such copies. Perhaps the old ones were good enough?
Some issues which still need to be addressed before this is merged:
- [ ] The new docs assert that `drop_in_place` is equivalent to calling `read` and discarding the value. Is this correct?
- [ ] Do `write_bytes` and `swap_nonoverlapping` require properly aligned pointers?
- [ ] The new example for `drop_in_place` is a lackluster.
- [ ] Should these docs rigorously define what `valid` memory is? Or should is that the job of the reference? Should we link to the reference?
- [ ] Is it correct to require that pointers that will be read from refer to "valid values of type `T`"?
- [x] I can't imagine ever using `{read,write}_volatile` with non-`Copy` types. Should I just link to {read,write} and say that the same issues with non-`Copy` types apply?
- [x] `write_volatile` doesn't link back to `read_volatile`.
- [ ] Update docs for the unstable [`swap_nonoverlapping`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42818)
- [ ] Update docs for the unstable [unsafe pointer methods RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1966)
Looking forward to your feedback.
r? @steveklabnik
