Removing @Centri3 from reviewer rotation
Catherine decided that the best course of action would be to (maybe temporarily) remove her from the reviewer's rotation (but not unassign her from her current reviews). This PR does that. She'll always be welcomed back if she wants to review some more ❤️
> Alejandra González: [youremyfrennow.mp4](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/user_uploads/4715/7nE2W6cb8Q02gcK-vubvmsPM/youremyfrennow.mp4)
>
>Catherine, Fred (`@xFrednet` ) noticed that you aren't as active as in the summer, and proposed that maybe you preferred to be removed from the reviewer rotation. Don't worry, you aren't being taken out of the team, just wanted to know if you maybe preferred to not have those reviews pilling up (they can be pretty stressful to see).
>
>If you decide to step out of the reviewers rotation, you wouldn't be removed from the team, you just wouldn't have that responsability. Everyone takes break and that's fine, so yeah, if you want to not have to review PRs, let me know!
>
>So yeah, from weird teenager transfem to (probably weird) teenager transfem, the choice is in your hand.
>
>Alejandra González: meow meow ^•ﻌ•^
>
>Catherine (Centri3): Yeah that's probably best now, I'll still try with any I'm currently assigned to but I would prefer not to get anymore until then
>Catherine (Centri3): meow meow :3
changelog:none
r? `@Centri3`
Compute layout with spans for better cycle errors in coroutines
Split out from #117703, this PR at least gives us a nicer span to point at when we hit a cycle error in coroutine layout cycles.
Remove `-Zkeep-hygiene-data`.
It was added way back in #28585 under the name `-Zkeep-mtwt-tables`. The justification was:
> This is so that the resolution results can be used after analysis,
> potentially for tool support.
There are no uses of significance in the code base, and various Google searches for both option names (and variants) found nothing of interest. I think this can safely be removed.
r? `@davidtwco`
This was broken by upstream
llvm/llvm-project@dc6d077396. It's easy
enough to use a regex match to support both, so we do that.
r? @nikic
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
`ReLateBound` -> `ReBound`
first step of https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/95
already fairly large xx
there's some future work here I intentionally did not contribute as part of this PR, from my notes:
- `DescriptionCtx` to `DescriptionCtxt`
- what is `CheckRegions::Bound`?
- `collect_late_bound_regions` et al
- `erase_late_bound_regions` -> `instantiate_bound_regions_with_erased`?
- `EraseEarlyRegions` should be removed, feels duplicate
r? `@BoxyUwU`
move `suspicious_doc_comments` to doc pass
This was my first lint. I've been meaning to move it over to `doc.rs` since that's a better place.
There weren't any changes made to the lint logic itself.
I guess this can be considered part of #11493
changelog: none
rustdoc: use `.rustdoc` class instead of `body`
This didn't show up in our local tests, because the problem is actually caused by docs.rs rewritten HTML (which relocates the classes that this code looked for from the body tag to a child div).
Fixes#117290
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
Both problems are regressions introduced by #115948
This didn't show up in our local tests, because the problem is actually
caused by docs.rs rewritten HTML (which relocates the classes that this
code looked for from the body tag to a child div).
Fixes#117290
coverage: Avoid creating malformed macro name spans
This is a workaround for #117788. It detects a particular scenario where we would create malformed coverage spans that might cause `llvm-cov` to immediately exit with an error, preventing the user from processing coverage reports.
The patch has been kept as simple as possible so that it's trivial to backport to beta (or stable) if desired.
---
The `maybe_push_macro_name_span` method is trying to detect macro invocations, so that it can split a span into two parts just after the `!` of the invocation.
Under some circumstances (probably involving nested macros), it gets confused and produces a span that is larger than the original span, and possibly extends outside its enclosing function and even into an adjacent file.
In extreme cases, that can result in malformed coverage mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. For now, we at least want to detect these egregious cases and avoid them, so that coverage reports can still be produced.
Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that
cause `llvm-cov` to fail.
(And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
The included measurements have varied over the years. At one point there
were quite a few more, but #49558 deleted a lot that were no longer
used. Today there's just four, and it's a motley collection that doesn't
seem particularly valuable.
I think it has been well and truly subsumed by self-profiling, which
collects way more data.
