Always preserve `None`-delimited groups in a captured `TokenStream`
Previously, we would silently remove any `None`-delimiters when
capturing a `TokenStream`, 'flattenting' them to their inner tokens.
This was not normally visible, since we usually have
`TokenKind::Interpolated` (which gets converted to a `None`-delimited
group during macro invocation) instead of an actual `None`-delimited
group.
However, there are a couple of cases where this becomes visible to
proc-macros:
1. A cross-crate `macro_rules!` macro has a `None`-delimited group
stored in its body (as a result of being produced by another
`macro_rules!` macro). The cross-crate `macro_rules!` invocation
can then expand to an attribute macro invocation, which needs
to be able to see the `None`-delimited group.
2. A proc-macro can invoke an attribute proc-macro with its re-collected
input. If there are any nonterminals present in the input, they will
get re-collected to `None`-delimited groups, which will then get
captured as part of the attribute macro invocation.
Both of these cases are incredibly obscure, so there hopefully won't be
any breakage. This change will allow more agressive 'flattenting' of
nonterminals in #82608 without losing `None`-delimited groups.
Improve fs error open_from unix
Consistency for #79399
Suggested by JohnTitor
r? `@JohnTitor`
Not user if the error is too long now, do we handle long errors well?
rustdoc: Use diagnostics for error when including sources
This error probably almost never happens, but we should still use the
diagnostic infrastructure. My guess is that the error was added back
before rustdoc used the rustc diagnostic infrastructure (it was all
`println!` and `eprintln!` back then!) and since it likely rarely occurs
and this code doesn't change that much, no one thought to transition it
to using diagnostics.
Note that the old error was actually a warning (it didn't stop the rest
of doc building). It seems very unlikely that this would fail without
the rest of the doc build failing, so it makes more sense for it to be a
hard error.
The error looks like this:
error: failed to render source code for `src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs`: "bar": foo
--> src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs:3:1
|
3 | / #![crate_name = "foo"]
4 | |
5 | | //! This is the "start" of the 'document'! How'd you know that "it's" ...
6 | | //!
... |
22 | | //! I say "don't smart-punct me -- please!"
23 | | //! ```
| |_______^
I wasn't sure how to trigger the error, so to create that message I
temporarily made rustdoc always emit it. That's also why it says "bar"
and "foo" instead of a real error message.
Note that the span of the diagnostic starts at line 3 because line 1 of
that file is a (non-doc) comment and line 2 is a blank line.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
update array missing `IntoIterator` msg
fixes#82602
r? ```@estebank``` do you know whether we can use the expr span in `rustc_on_unimplemented`? The label isn't too great rn
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See #67364.)
Derive Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
This derives Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
Fix Debug implementation for RwLock{Read,Write}Guard.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print `"<locked>"` unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
MutexGuard had this problem too: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57702
ExitStatus: print "exit status: {}" rather than "exit code: {}" on unix
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit
code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can
tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.)
This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier
names in the Rust stdlib.
It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.htmlhttps://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html
Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and
a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename
`std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or
something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably
most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and
system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust
has this wrong terminology.
So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have
already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation.
This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs
which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the
exit status string, except perhaps in tests.
format macro argument parsing fix
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
---
r? ```@estebank```
Generalize and inline slice::fill specializations
This makes the memset specialization applicable to more types. And since the code now lives in a generic method it is also eligible for cross-crate inlining which should fix#83235
`len_without_is_empty` improvements
fixes: #6958fixes: #6972
changelog: Check the return type of `len`. Only integral types, or an `Option` or `Result` wrapping one.
changelog: Ensure the return type of `is_empty` matches. e.g. `Option<usize>` -> `Option<bool>`
Check the return type of `len`. Only integral types, or an `Option` or `Result` wrapping one.
Ensure the return type of `is_empty` matches. e.g. `Option<usize>` -> `Option<bool>`
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's
any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive
implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual
implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that
the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print
"<locked>" unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the
other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
