attempt to recover perf by removing `exports_all_green`
attempt to recover perf by removing `exports_all_green` flag.
cc #71248
(My hypothesis is that my use of this flag was an overly conservative generalization of PR #67020.)
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #69362 (Stabilize most common subset of alloc_layout_extras)
- #71174 (Check that main/start is not async)
- #71285 (MIR: use HirId instead of NodeId to avoid cycles while inlining)
- #71346 (Do not build tools if user do not want them)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
MIR: use HirId instead of NodeId to avoid cycles while inlining
I wanted to see if I could limit the number of uses of `NodeId` when `HirId` is available and I saw that some of the MIR `Inliner` code could use `Span` instead of `NodeId`, not unlike in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71197.
~If I'm understanding the reason for not calling `optimized_mir` in incremental builds here correctly, this change could also allow us to do so.~
This change could affect performance, so if this approach makes sense, a perf run is probably a good idea.
Check that main/start is not async
* Add new error code E0752
* Add span to hir::IsAsync::Yes
* Emit an error if main or the start function is marked as async
* Add two regression tests
This PR fixes#68523.
Stabilize most common subset of alloc_layout_extras
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55724
Specifically, this stabilizes:
```rust
pub fn Layout::align_to(&self, align: usize) -> Result<Layout, LayoutErr>;
pub fn Layout::pad_to_align(&self) -> Layout;
pub fn Layout::extend(&self, next: Layout) -> Result<(Layout, usize), LayoutErr>;
pub fn Layout::array<T>(n: usize) -> Result<Layout, LayoutErr>;
```
Methods that are tracked by #55724 but are not stabilized here:
```rust
pub fn Layout::padding_needed_for(&self, align: usize) -> usize;
pub fn Layout::repeat(&self, n: usize) -> Result<(Layout, usize), LayoutErr>;
pub fn Layout::repeat_packed(&self, n: usize) -> Result<Layout, LayoutErr>;
pub fn Layout::extend_packed(&self, next: Layout) -> Result<Layout, LayoutErr>;
```
Combined, these stabilized functions allow code to construct and manipulate `repr(C)` layouts while letting the standard library handle correctness in the face of edge cases. For example use cases, consider the usage in [hashbrown](https://github.com/Amanieu/hashbrown/blob/2f2af1d/src/raw/mod.rs#L143), [crossbeam-skiplist](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam-skiplist/blob/master/src/base.rs#L99), [pointer-utils/slice-dst](92aeefeed9/crates/slice-dst/src/layout_polyfill.rs), and of course the standard library itself.
Providing a higher-level API such as `Layout::repr_c<const N: usize>(fields: [Layout; N]) -> Result<(Layout, [usize; N]), LayoutErr>` is blocked on const generics, which are a ways off. Providing an API that doesn't provide offsets would be quite suboptimal, as the reason for calculating the layout like this rather than `Layout::new` is to get the field offsets.
The primary issue with the current API is having to call `.pad_to_align()` to match the layout of a `repr(C)` struct. However, I think this is not just a (failing? limitation?) of the API, but rather intrinsic complexity. While all Rust-defined types have size==stride, and probably will for the foreseeable future, there is no inherent reason why this is a limitation of all allocations. As such, the `Layout` manipulation APIs shouldn't impose this limitation, and instead the higher level api of `repr_c` (or just plain old using `Layout::new`) can make keeping it simple.
cc @matklad r? @rust-lang/libs
When the return type is `!Sized` we look for all the returned
expressions in the body to fetch their types and provide a reasonable
suggestion. The tail expression of the body is normally evaluated after
checking whether the return type is `Sized`. Changing the order of the
evaluation produces undesirable knock down effects, so we detect the
specific case that newcomers are likely to encounter ,returning a single
bare trait object, and only in that case we evaluate the tail
expression's type so that the suggestion will be accurate.
During development, a function could have a return type set that is a
bare trait object by accident. We already suggest using either a boxed
trait object or `impl Trait` if the return paths will allow it. We now
do so too when there are *no* return paths or they all resolve to `!`.
We still don't handle cases where the trait object is *not* the entirety
of the return type gracefully.
Update pattern docs.
A few changes to help clarify string pattern usage:
* Add some examples and stability information in the `pattern` module.
* Fixes the links at https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/str/pattern/ because intra-doc-links don't work with re-exported modules (#65983 I think?).
* Consistently use the same phrasing for `str` methods taking a pattern.
* Also mention that array of `char` is also accepted.
When `Pattern` is stabilized, the phrasing in the `str` methods can be updated to be more general to reflect the exact behavior. I'm reluctant to do this now because the stability story for `Pattern` is uncertain. It may perhaps look something like:
> The pattern can be any type that implements the [`Pattern`] trait. Notable examples are `&str`, [`char`], arrays of [`char`], or functions or closures that determines if a character matches. Additional libraries might provide more complex patterns like regular expressions.
This is complicated because methods like `trim_matches` have bounds, which for example don't support `str`, so those methods may need more elaboration.
Replace big JS dict with JSON parsing
Part of #56545.
@ollie27 suggested that using JSON instead of a JS dict might be faster, so I decided to test it. And the results far exceeded whatever expectations I had...
I used https://github.com/adamgreig/stm32ral for my tests. If you want to build it locally:
```bash
$ cargo doc --features doc --open
```
But I strongly recommend to do it with this PR. Some numbers:
* Loading a page with the JSON search-index: less than 1 second
* Loading a page with the JS search-index: crashed after 30 seconds
I think the results are clear enough...
r? @ollie27
cc @rust-lang/rustdoc
* Add new error code E0752
* Add span to hir::IsAsync::Yes
* Emit an error if main or the start function is marked as async
* Add two regression tests
Fix formatting errors and bless test outputs
* move tests to ui/async-await
fix test error text
remove span from IsAsync
