Majority of targets use "unknown" vendor and changing it from "unknown" to omitted doesn't make sense.
From the LLVM docs (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html#target-triple):
>Most of the time it can be omitted (and Unknown) will be assumed, which sets the defaults for the specified architecture.
>When a parameter is not important, it can be omitted, or you can choose unknown and the defaults will be used. If you choose a parameter that Clang doesn’t know, like blerg, it’ll ignore and assume unknown
The discussion seems to have resolved that this lint is a bit "noisy" in
that applying it in all places would result in a reduction in
readability.
A few of the trivial functions (like `Path::new`) are fine to leave
outside of closures.
The general rule seems to be that anything that is obviously an
allocation (`Box`, `Vec`, `vec![]`) should be in a closure, even if it
is a 0-sized allocation.
Rollup of 14 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #76765 (Make it more clear what an about async fn's returns when referring to what it returns)
- #78574 (Use check-pass instead of build-pass in regions ui test suite)
- #78669 (Use check-pass instead of build-pass in some consts ui test suits)
- #78847 (Assert that a return place is not used for indexing during integration)
- #78854 (Workaround for "could not fully normalize" ICE )
- #78875 (rustc_target: Further cleanup use of target options)
- #78887 (Add comments to explain memory usage optimization)
- #78890 (comment attribution fix)
- #78896 (Clarified description of write! macro)
- #78897 (Add missing newline to error message of the default OOM hook)
- #78898 (add regression test for #78892)
- #78908 ((rustdoc) [src] link for types defined by macros shows invocation, not defintion)
- #78910 (Fix links to stabilized versions of some intrinsics)
- #78912 (Add macro test for min-const-generics)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
It was only ever used with Vec<u8> anyway. This simplifies some things.
- It no longer needs to be flushed, because that's a no-op anyway for
a Vec<u8>.
- Writing to a Vec<u8> never fails.
- No #[cfg(test)] code is needed anymore to use `realstd` instead of
`std`, because Vec comes from alloc, not std (like Write).
(rustdoc) [src] link for types defined by macros shows invocation, not defintion
Previously the [src] link on types defined by a macro pointed to the macro definition.
This pr makes the Clean-Implementation for Spans aware of macro defined types, so that the link points to the invocation instead.
I'm not totally sure if it's okay to add the 'macro awareness' in the Clean-Implementation, because it erases that knowledge for all following code. Maybe it would be more sensible to add the check only for the link generation at 25f6938da4/src/librustdoc/html/render/mod.rs (L1619)Closes#39726.
Add missing newline to error message of the default OOM hook
Currently the default OOM hook in libstd does not end the error message with a newline:
```
memory allocation of 4 bytes failedtimeout: the monitored command dumped core
/playground/tools/entrypoint.sh: line 11: 7 Aborted timeout --signal=KILL ${timeout} "$`@"`
```
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=030d8223eb57dfe47ef157709aa26542
This is because the `fmt::Arguments` passed to `dumb_print()` does not end with a newline. All other calls to `dumb_print()` in libstd pass a `\n`-ended `fmt::Arguments` to `dumb_print()`. For example:
25f6938da4/library/std/src/sys_common/util.rs (L18)
I think the `\n` was forgotten in #51264.
This PR appends `\n` to the error string.
~~Note that I didn't add a test, because I didn't find tests for functions in ` library/std/src/alloc.rs` or a test that is similar to the test of this change would be.~~ *Edit: CI told me there is an existing test. Sorry.*
Add comments to explain memory usage optimization
Add explanatory comments so that people understand that it's just an optimization and doesn't affect behavior.
rustc_target: Further cleanup use of target options
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77729.
Implements items 2 and 4 from the list in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77729#issue-500228243.
The first commit collapses uses of `target.options.foo` into `target.foo`.
The second commit renames some target options to avoid tautology:
`target.target_endian` -> `target.endian`
`target.target_c_int_width` -> `target.c_int_width`
`target.target_os` -> `target.os`
`target.target_env` -> `target.env`
`target.target_vendor` -> `target.vendor`
`target.target_family` -> `target.os_family`
`target.target_mcount` -> `target.mcount`
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Workaround for "could not fully normalize" ICE
Workaround for "could not fully normalize" ICE (#78139) by removing the `needs_drop::<T>()` calls triggering it.
Corresponding beta PR: #78845Fixes#78139 -- the underlying bug is likely not fixed but we don't have another test case isolated for now, so closing.
Assert that a return place is not used for indexing during integration
The inliner integrates call destination place with callee return place
by remapping the local and adding extra projections as necessary.
If a call destination place contains any projections (which is already
possible) and a return place is used in an indexing projection (most
likely doesn't happen yet) the end result would be incorrect.
Add an assertion to ensure that potential issue won't go unnoticed in
the presence of more sophisticated copy propagation scheme.
Use check-pass instead of build-pass in some consts ui test suits
Helps with #62277
Changed tests modified by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57175 because of the stabilization `#![feature(const_let)]`.
They should be compile-fail because the feature gate checking disallow the feature before stabilization. So the feature gate checking have nothing to do with codegen according to https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/feature-gate-ck.html.
Make it more clear what an about async fn's returns when referring to what it returns
see #76547
This is *likely* not the ONLY place that this happens to be unclear, but we can move this fn to rustc_middle or something like that and reuse it if need be, to apply it to more diagnostics
One outstanding question I have is, if the fn returns (), should I make the message more clear (what about `fn f()` vs `fn f() -> ()`, can you tell those apart in the hir?)
R? `@tmandry`
`@rustbot` modify labels +A-diagnostics +T-compiler
