Merged
Conversation
The spans for "trait bound not satisfied" errors in trivial trait bounds referenced the entire item (fn, impl, struct) before. Now they only reference the obligation itself (`String: Copy`) Address rust-lang#90869
Co-authored-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
warn on must_use use on async fn's As referenced in rust-lang#78149 This only works on `async` fn's for now, I can also look into if I can get `Box<dyn Future>` and `impl Future` working at this level (hir)
…ostics, r=estebank Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected Makes progress towards rust-lang#90600 The diagnostics here were previously entirely removed due to giving a misleading suggestion but if we instead provide an informative label in that same location it should better help the user understand the situation. I included the example from the issue as it demonstrates an area where the diagnostics are still lacking. Happy to remove that if its just adding noise atm.
Permit const panics in stable const contexts in stdlib Without this change, it is not possible to use `panic!` and similar (including `assert!`) in stable const contexts inside of stdlib. See rust-lang#89542 for a real-world case that currently fails for this reason. This does _not_ affect any user code. For example, this snippet currently fails to compile: ```rust #[stable(feature = "foo", since = "1.0.0")] #[rustc_const_stable(feature = "foo", since = "1.0.0")] const fn foo() { assert!(false); assert!(false, "foo"); } ``` With the addition of `#[rustc_const_unstable]` to `core::panicking::panic`, the error no longer occurs. This snippet has been added verbatim in this PR as a UI test. To avoid needing to add `#![feature(core_panic)]` to libcore, the two instances of direct calls to `core::panicking::panic` have been switched to use the `panic!` macro. I am requesting prioritization because this is holding up other stabilizations such as rust-lang#89542 (which is otherwise ready to merge and succeeds with this change)
…shtriplett Add Vec::retain_mut This is to continue the discussion started in rust-lang#83218. Original comment was: > Take 2 of rust-lang#34265, since I needed this today. The reason I think why we should add `retain_mut` is for coherency and for discoverability. For example we have `chunks` and `chunks_mut` or `get` and `get_mut` or `iter` and `iter_mut`, etc. When looking for mutable `retain`, I would expect `retain_mut` to exist. It took me a while to find out about `drain_filter`. So even if it provides an API close to `drain_filter`, just for the discoverability, I think it's worth it. cc ``````@m-ou-se`````` ``````@jonas-schievink`````` ``````@Mark-Simulacrum``````
Print escaped string if char literal has multiple characters, but only one printable character Fixes rust-lang#90857 I'm not sure about the error message here, it could get rather long and *maybe* using the names of characters would be better? That wouldn't help the length any, though.
…und, r=estebank Fix span for non-satisfied trivial trait bounds The spans for "trait bound not satisfied" errors in trivial trait bounds referenced the entire item (fn, impl, struct) before. Now they only reference the obligation itself (`String: Copy`) Address rust-lang#90869
Remove workaround for the forward progress handling in LLVM this workaround was only needed for LLVM < 12 and the minimum LLVM version was updated to 12 in rust-lang#90175
…estebank Improve ManuallyDrop suggestion closes rust-lang#90585 * Fixes the recommended change to use ManuallyDrop as per the issue * Changes the note to a help * improves the span so it only points at the type.
Member
Author
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=8 |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 469faa2 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Collaborator
|
Finished benchmarking commit (c9c4b5d): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
11 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup