Skip to content

Conversation

JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

hirrolot and others added 25 commits September 30, 2020 12:00
btree/map.rs is approaching the 3000 line mark, splitting out the entry
code buys about 500 lines of headroom
This commit improves the diagnostic modified in rust-lang#77341 to
suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with
fields (by suggesting with placeholders).

Signed-off-by: David Wood <[email protected]>
This commit improves the tuple struct case added in rust-lang#77341
so that the context is mentioned in more of the message.

Signed-off-by: David Wood <[email protected]>
This pulls in rust-lang/backtrace-rs#376, which
fixes Miri support for `std::backtrace::Backtrace`.
Since rustdoc isn't warning about these links, check for them manually.
…stebank

Suggest imports of unresolved macros

Closes rust-lang#75191.
…ewjasper

stabilize union with 'ManuallyDrop' fields and 'impl Drop for Union'

As [discussed by @SimonSapin and @withoutboats](rust-lang#55149 (comment)), this PR proposes to stabilize parts of the `untagged_union` feature gate:

* It will be possible to have a union with field type `ManuallyDrop<T>` for any `T`.
* While at it I propose we also stabilize `impl Drop for Union`; to my knowledge, there are no open concerns around this feature.

In the RFC discussion, we also talked about allowing `&mut T` as another non-`Copy` non-dropping type, but that felt to me like an overly specific exception so I figured we'd wait if there is actually any use for such a special case.

Some things remain unstable and still require the `untagged_union` feature gate:
* Union with fields that do not drop, are not `Copy`, and are not `ManuallyDrop<_>`. The reason to not stabilize this is to avoid semver concerns around libraries adding `Drop` implementations later. (This is already not fully semver compatible as, to my knowledge, the borrow checker will exploit the non-dropping nature of any type, but it seems prudent to avoid further increasing the amount of trouble adding an `impl Drop` can cause.)

Due to this, quite a few tests still need the `untagged_union` feature, but I think the ones where I could remove the feature flag provide good test coverage for the stable part.

Cc @rust-lang/lang
…meGomez

Don't link to nightly primitives on stable channel

I am not sure how to test this.

Closes rust-lang#77775

r? @GuillaumeGomez
BTreeMap: refactor Entry out of map.rs into its own file

btree/map.rs is approaching the 3000 line mark, splitting out the entry
code buys about 500 lines of headroom.

I've created this PR because the changes I've made in rust-lang#77438 will push `map.rs` over the 3000 line limit and cause tidy to complain.

I picked `Entry` to factor out because it feels less tightly coupled to the rest of `BTreeMap` than the various iterator implementations.

Related: rust-lang#60302
…nstructable-variants, r=estebank

resolve: further improvements to "try using the enum's variant" diagnostic

Follow-up on rust-lang#77341 (comment).

This PR improves the diagnostic modified in rust-lang#77341 to suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with fields (by suggesting with placeholders). In addition, the wording of the tuple-variant-only case is improved slightly.

I've not made further changes to the tuple-variant-only case (e.g. to only suggest variants with the correct number of fields) because I don't think I have enough information to do so reliably (e.g. in the case where there is an attempt to construct a tuple variant, I have no information on how many fields were provided; and in the case of pattern matching, I only have a slice of spans and would need to check for things like `..` in those spans, which doesn't seem worth it).

r? @estebank
…dtwco,oli-obk

Suggest minimal subset features in `incomplete_features` lint

This tells users that we have a minimal subset feature of it and they can fix the lint warning without allowing it.
The wording improvement is helpful :)

Fixes rust-lang#77913
…rk-simulacrum

Deny broken intra-doc links in linkchecker

Since rustdoc isn't warning about these links, check for them manually.

This also fixes the broken links that popped up from the lint.
…ark-Simulacrum

Bump backtrace-rs

This pulls in rust-lang/backtrace-rs#376, which
fixes Miri support for `std::backtrace::Backtrace`.
…obile-devices, r=jyn514

Fix sidebar scroll on mobile devices

Fixes rust-lang#77942.

The issue was coming from the appearance/disappearance of the "wrapper" on the mobile devices web browsers, which triggers the "resize" event, calling the `hideSidebar` function is the JS code.

r? @jyn514
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5
@rustbot modify labels: +rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 16, 2020

📌 Commit 40160a1 has been approved by JohnTitor

@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Oct 16, 2020
@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Oct 16, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 16, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 40160a1 with merge 166e3824174c8b90168ab10428f73e896a774ad4...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 16, 2020

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Oct 16, 2020
@JohnTitor JohnTitor closed this Oct 16, 2020
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

I guess #77851 is the cause, closing.

@JohnTitor JohnTitor deleted the rollup-p96vgau branch October 16, 2020 20:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants