Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rollup of 10 pull requests #78024

Closed
wants to merge 25 commits into from
Closed

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 <david@davidtw.co>
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 <david@davidtw.co>
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
Contributor

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
Contributor

bors commented Oct 16, 2020

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

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

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