Rollup of 7 pull requests #87058
Closed
Rollup of 7 pull requests #87058
Conversation
This file contains 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
Apparently the Rust reference has moved again, so the link gave a 404 error.
This function was used in an earlier version, when idx's were used to serialize function inputs and outputs. That's not done any more, so removed the JS-side support for it.
Because specifying these flags multiple times will never be discernibly different in functionality from specifying them a single time, there is no reason to fail and report an error to the user.
…n514 Rustdoc: Change all 'optflag' arguments to 'optflagmulti' Because specifying these flags multiple times will never be discernibly different in functionality from specifying them a single time, there is no reason to fail and report an error to the user. This might be a slightly controversial change. it's tough to say, but it's hard to imagine a case where somebody was depending on this behavior, and doing this seem actively better for the user. This originally came up in discussion of a fix for [Cargo rust-lang#8373](rust-lang/cargo#8373), in [Cargo PR rust-lang#8422](rust-lang/cargo#8422). The issue is that Cargo will automatically add things like `--document-private-items` to binaries, because it's the only thing that makes sense there. Then some poor user comes along and adds `--document-private-items` to their `rustdoc` flags for the project and suddenly they're getting errors for specifying a flag twice and need to track down which targets to actually add it to without getting duplicates for reasons they won't understand without deep understanding of Cargo behavior. We're apparently hesitant to inspect `rustdoc` flags provided by the user directly in Cargo, because they're supposed to be opaque, so looking to see if it's already provided before adding it is evidently a non-starter. In trying to resolve that, one suggestion I came up with was to just change `rustdoc` to support passing the flag multiple times, because the user's intent should be clear and it's not *really* an error, so maybe this is a case of 'be permissive in what you accept'. This PR is an attempt to do that in a straightforward manner for purposes of discussion.
Report an error if resolution of closure call functions failed This pull request fixes rust-lang#86238. The current implementation seems to assume that resolution of closure call functions (I'm not sure what the proper term is; I mean `call` of `Fn` etc.) can never fail: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/60f1a2fc4b535ead9c85ce085fdce49b1b097531/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/callee.rs#L590-L595 But actually, it can, if the `fn`/`fn_mut`/`fn_once` lang items are not defined, or don't have an associated `call`/`call_mut`/`call_once` function, leading to the ICE described in rust-lang#86238. I have therefore turned the `span_bug!()` into an error message, which prevents the ICE.
Improve error reporting for modifications behind `&` references I had a look at rust-lang#84210 and noticed that rust-lang#85823 has effectively already fixed rust-lang#84210. However, the string matching in rust-lang#85823 is _very_ crude and already breaks down when a variable name starts with `mut`. I have made this a bit more robust; further improvements could definitely be made but are complicated by the lack of information provided by an earlier pass: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/ce331ee6ee010438d1a58c7da8ced4f26d69a20e/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/build/matches/mod.rs#L2103-L2107 I have also fixed a missing comma in the error message.
Update reference.md I ran into a link to the outdated src/doc/reference.md here: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/conditional-compilation-for-debug-release/1098/6 Apparently the Rust reference has moved again, so the link gave a 404 error. This should fix it.
…getobjectnamefromid, r=GuillaumeGomez cleanup(rustdoc): remove unused function getObjectNameById This function was used in an earlier version, when idx's were used to serialize function inputs and outputs. That's not done any more, so removed the JS-side support for it.
Fix tracking issue for `bool_to_option` The previous tracking issue was closed in favor of the current.
…crum Account for `submodules = false` in config.toml when updating LLVM submodule Fixes rust-lang#86954. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` cc `@durin42`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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:
&references #86815 (Improve error reporting for modifications behind&references)bool_to_option#87045 (Fix tracking issue forbool_to_option)submodules = falsein config.toml when updating LLVM submodule #87049 (Account forsubmodules = falsein config.toml when updating LLVM submodule)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup