Instead of just switching to a probe, check for different matches, and see how many there are.
If one, unify it, otherwise return true and let it be unified later.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104163 (Don't derive Debug for `OnceWith` & `RepeatWith`)
- #106131 (Mention "signature" rather than "fn pointer" when impl/trait methods are incompatible)
- #106363 (Structured suggestion for `&mut dyn Iterator` when possible)
- #106497 (Suggest using clone when we have &T and T implemented Clone)
- #106584 (Document that `Vec::from_raw_parts[_in]` must be given a pointer from the correct allocator.)
- #106600 (Suppress type errors that come from private fields)
- #106602 (Add goml scripts to tidy checks)
- #106606 (Do not emit structured suggestion for turbofish with wrong span)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Document that `Vec::from_raw_parts[_in]` must be given a pointer from the correct allocator.
Currently, the documentation of `Vec::from_raw_parts` and `Vec::from_raw_parts_in` says nothing about what allocator the pointer must come from. This PR adds that missing information explicitly.
Don't derive Debug for `OnceWith` & `RepeatWith`
Closures don't impl Debug, so the derived impl is kinda useless. The behavior of not debug-printing closures is consistent with the rest of the iterator adapters/sources.
Loosen the bound on the Debug implementation of Weak.
Both `rc::Weak<T>` and `sync::Weak<T>` currently require `T: Debug` in their own `Debug` implementations, but they don't currently use it; they only ever print a fixed string.
A general implementation of Debug for Weak that actually attempts to upgrade and rely on the contents is unlikely in the future because it may have unbounded recursion in the presence of reference cycles, which Weak is commonly used in. (This was the justification for why the current implementation [was implemented the way it is](f0976e2cf3)).
When I brought it up [on the forum](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/could-the-bound-on-weak-debug-be-relaxed/15504), it was suggested that, even if an implementation is specialized in the future that relies on the data stored within the Weak, it would likely rely on specialization anyway, and could therefore easily specialize on the Debug bound as well.
Add retry mechanism for rustdoc GUI tests to reduce flakyness
Part of #93784.
I added 3 retries for failing GUI tests. An important note: if more than half of total tests fail, I don't retry because it's very likely not flakyness anymore at this point but a missing update after changes.
fix a bunch of clippy lints
fixes a bunch of clippy lints for fun and profit
i'm aware of this repo's position on clippy. The changes are split into separate commits so they can be reviewed separately
Rework `Bounds` collection
I think it's weird for the `Bounds` struct in astconv to store its predicates *almost* converted into real predicates... so we do this eagerly, instead of lazily.
remove unreachable error code `E0313`
Fixes#103742
Makes #103433 redundant
Implements removal of `E0313`. I agree with the linked issue that this error code is unreachable but if someone could confirm that would be great, are crater runs done for this sort of thing?
Also removed a redundant `// ignore-tidy-filelength` that I found while reading code.
cc ``@GuillaumeGomez`` #61137
Add some UI tests and reword error-code docs
Added UI tests for `E0013` and `E0015`. Error code docs for `E0015` were a bit unclear (they referred to all non-const errors in const context, when only non-const functions applied), so I touched them up a bit.
I also fixed up some issues in the new `error_codes.rs` tidy check (linked #106341), that I overlooked previously.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
Suggest `mut self: &mut Self` for `?Sized` impls
Closes#106325Closes#93078
The suggestion is _probably_ not what the user wants (hence `MaybeIncorrect`) but at least makes the problem in the above issues clearer. It might be better to add a note explaining why this is the case, but I'm not sure how best to word that so this is a start.
``@rustbot`` label +A-diagnostics
Update `rand` in the stdlib tests, and remove the `getrandom` feature from it.
The main goal is actually removing `getrandom`, so that eventually we can allow running the stdlib test suite on tier3 targets which don't have `getrandom` support. Currently those targets can only run the subset of stdlib tests that exist in uitests, and (generally speaking), we prefer not to test libstd functionality in uitests, which came up recently in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104095 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185. Additionally, the fact that we can't update `rand`/`getrandom` means we're stuck with the old set of tier3 targets, so can't test new ones.
~~Anyway, I haven't checked that this actually does allow use on tier3 targets (I think it does not, as some work is needed in stdlib submodules) but it moves us slightly closer to this, and seems to allow at least finally updating our `rand` dep, which definitely improves the status quo.~~ Checked and works now.
For the most part, our tests and benchmarks are fine using hard-coded seeds. A couple tests seem to fail with this (stuff manipulating the environment expecting no collisions, for example), or become pointless (all inputs to a function become equivalent). In these cases I've done a (gross) dance (ab)using `RandomState` and `Location::caller()` for some extra "entropy".
Trying to share that code seems *way* more painful than it's worth given that the duplication is a 7-line function, even if the lines are quite gross. (Keeping in mind that sharing it would require adding `rand` as a non-dev dep to std, and exposing a type from it publicly, all of which sounds truly awful, even if done behind a perma-unstable feature).
See also some previous attempts:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963 (in particular https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963#issuecomment-885438936 which explains why this is non-trivial)
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89131
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96626#issuecomment-1114562857 (I tried in that PR at the same time, but settled for just removing the usage of `thread_rng()` from the benchmarks, since that was the main goal).
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185
- Probably more. It's very tempting of a thing to "just update".
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
