Rollup of 8 pull requests #87068
Merged
Rollup of 8 pull requests #87068
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
This removes two dependencies of rustbuild
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.
…ulacrum Update regex crates This removes two dependencies of rustbuild
…cs, r=Mark-Simulacrum [docs] Clarify behaviour of f64 and f32::sqrt when argument is negative zero From IEEE 754 section 6.3: > Except that squareRoot(−0) shall be −0, every numeric squareRoot result shall have a positive sign.
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``
Do not suggest adding a semicolon after `?` Fixes rust-lang#87051. I have only modified `report_return_mismatched_types()`, i.e. my changes only affect suggestions to add `;` for return type mismatches, but this never makes sense after `?`, because the function cannot return `()` if `?` is used (it has to return a `Result` or an `Option`), and a semicolon won't help if the expected and actual `Err` types differ, even if the expected one is `()`.
|
@bors r+ p=8 rollup=never |
|
📌 Commit 5fcefb1 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
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:
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)?#87061 (Do not suggest adding a semicolon after?)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup