Fix assertion when attempting to convert `f16` and `f128` with `as`
These types are currently rejected for `as` casts by the compiler. Remove this incorrect check and add codegen tests for all conversions involving these types.
These types are currently rejected for `as` casts by the compiler.
Remove this incorrect check and add codegen tests for all conversions
involving these types.
Rename `${length()}` to `${len()}`
Implements the rename suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122808#issuecomment-2047722187
> I brought this up in the doc PR but it belongs here – `length` should probably be renamed `len` before stabilization. The latter is de facto standard in the standard library, whereas the former is only used in a single unstable API. These metafunctions aren’t library items of course, but should presumably still be consistent with established names.
r? `@c410-f3r`
rustdoc: Negative impls are not notable
In #124097, we add `impl !Iterator for [T]` for coherence reasons, and since `Iterator` is a [notable trait](8387315ab3/library/core/src/iter/traits/iterator.rs (L40)), this means that all `-> &[_]` now are tagged with a `!Iterator` impl as a notable trait.
I "fixed" the failing tests in that PR with 6cbbb8b709a43482847243484ed67131e372ba71, where I just blessed the tests, since I didn't want to mix these changes with that PR; however, don't believe negative impls are notable, and this PR aims to prevent these impls from being mentioned.
In the standard library, we use negative impls purely to guide coherence. They're not really a signal of anything useful to the end-user. If there ever is a case that we want negative impls to be mentioned as notable, this really should be an opt-in feature.
Migrate `run-make/no-cdylib-as-rdylib` to `rmake`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
> "the test will fail if the cdylib is picked, because it doesn't export any rust symbols"
Is that true? Is there a way to verify?
I suggest maybe extending the test with: (after cleaning the directory)
```rust
rustc()
.input("bar.rs")
.crate_type("cdylib")
.run();
rustc()
.input("foo.rs")
.prefer_dynamic()
.run();
fail();
```
to make sure we're actually testing something here.
Fix the dedup error because of spans from suggestion
Fixes#116502
I believe this kind of issue is supposed resolved by #118057, but the `==` in `span` respect syntax context, here we should only care that they point to the same bytes of source text, so should use `source_equal`.
Migrate `run-make/issue-11908` to new `rmake.rs` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Set as draft, because I have a few concerns:
- [x] I am not sure if `target().contains("darwin")` is a good way of checking that the target is on OSX.
- [x] I find it strange that the `dylib` part of the test adapts to different target platforms, but not the `rlib` part. Is `rlib` named the same on all platforms?
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #119838 (style-guide: When breaking binops handle multi-line first operand better)
- #124844 (Use a proper probe for shadowing impl)
- #125047 (Migrate `run-make/issue-14500` to new `rmake.rs` format)
- #125080 (only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates)
- #125088 (Uplift `AliasTy` and `AliasTerm`)
- #125100 (Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion)
- #125118 (Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests
Little cleanup using new functions/methods I added into the `run-make-support` library.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion
Currently in method probing, if we fail to pick a method, then we reset and try to collect relevant candidates for method errors:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L953-L993)
However, we do method lookups via `lookup_method_for_diagnostic` and only care about the result if the method probe was a *success*.
Namely, we don't need to do a bunch of other lookups on failure, since we throw away these results anyways, such as an expensive call to:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L959)
And:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L985)
---
This PR also renames some methods so it's clear that they're for diagnostics.
r? `@nnethercote`
only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates
Fixes#124946
This PR includes two changes:
- Extracting the lookup for the missing method in chains into a single function.
- Calling this function only when there are no candidates available.
Migrate `run-make/issue-14500` to new `rmake.rs` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Note: I find suspicious that `libbar.a` is hardcoded and is not using the `STATICLIB` call to adapt to Windows platforms. Is this intentional? If not, this will need to be changed.
