In fc357039f9 `#[main]` was removed and replaced with `#[rustc_main]`.
In some place the rename was forgotten, which makes the current code
confusing, because at first glance it seems that `#[main]` is still
around. Perform the renames also in these places.
Older llvm has the pre-C++17 restriction on success and failure memory
ordering, requiring the former to be at least as strong as the latter.
So, for llvm 12, this upgrades the success ordering to a stronger one if
necessary.
Create elided lifetime parameters for function-like types
Split from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97720
This PR refactor lifetime generic parameters in bare function types and parenthesized traits to introduce the additional required lifetimes as fresh parameters in a `for<>` bound.
This PR does the same to lifetimes appearing in closure signatures, and as-if introducing `for<>` bounds on closures (without the associated change in semantics).
r? `@petrochenkov`
The goal of this change is to ensure that llvm will do stack slot
optimization on these temporaries. This ensures that in code like:
```rust
const A: [u8; 1024] = [0; 1024];
fn copy_const() {
f(A);
f(A);
}
```
we only use 1024 bytes of stack space, instead of 2048 bytes.
Point at return expression for RPIT-related error
Certainly this needs some diagnostic refining, but I wanted to show that it was possible first and foremost. Not sure if this is the right approach. Open to feedback.
Fixes#80583
use `def_ident_span` , `body_owner_def_id` instead of `in_progress_typeck_results`, `guess_head_span`
use `body_id.owner` directly
add description to label
This comment is out dated and misleading, the arm is about TAITs
r? ```@oli-obk```
```@oli-obk``` unsure if you want to add a different comment of some sort.
```@bors``` rollup=always
Remove the unused-`#[doc(hidden)]` logic from the `unused_attributes` lint
Fixes#96890.
It was found out that `#[doc(hidden)]` on trait impl items does indeed have an effect on the generated documentation (see the linked issue). In my opinion and the one of [others](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-rustdoc/topic/Validy.20checks.20for.20.60.23.5Bdoc.28hidden.29.5D.60/near/281846219), rustdoc's output is actually a bit flawed in that regard but that should be tracked in a new issue I suppose (I will open an issue for that in the near future).
The check was introduced in #96008 which is marked to be part of version `1.62` (current `beta`). As far as I understand, this means that **this PR needs to be backported** to `beta` to fix#96890 on time. Correct me if I am wrong.
CC `@dtolnay` (in case you would like to agree or disagree with my decision to fully remove this check)
`@rustbot` label A-lint T-compiler T-rustdoc
r? `@rust-lang/compiler`
lub: don't bail out due to empty binders
allows for the following to compile. The equivalent code using `struct Wrapper<'upper>(fn(&'upper ());` already compiles on stable.
```rust
let _: fn(&'upper ()) = match v {
true => lt_in_fn::<'a>(),
false => lt_in_fn::<'b>(),
};
```
see https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7034a677190110941223cafac6632f70 for a complete example
r? ```@rust-lang/types```
