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 12 pull requests #84924

Closed
wants to merge 31 commits into from

Conversation

Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

joshtriplett and others added 30 commits April 29, 2021 13:11
Moved -z ignore to add_as_needed

Trying to cross-compile for sparcv9-sun-solaris
getting an error message for -zignore

Introduced when -z -ignore was separated here
22d0ab0

No formatting done

Reproduce

``` bash
rustup target add sparcv9-sun-solaris
cargo new --bin hello && cd hello && cargo run --target=sparcv9-sun-solaris
```

config.toml

[target.sparcv9-sun-solaris]
linker = "gcc"
Fixes: rust-lang#84018

With `-Z instrument-coverage`, coverage reporting of dead blocks
(for example, blocks dropped because a conditional branch is dropped,
based on const evaluation) is now supported.

If `instrument-coverage` is enabled, `simplify::remove_dead_blocks()`
finds all dropped coverage `Statement`s and adds their `code_region`s as
`Unreachable` coverage `Statement`s to the `START_BLOCK`, so they are
still included in the coverage map.

Check out the resulting changes in the test coverage reports in this PR.
Clippy: Decreases indentation and improves readability

Signed-off-by: wcampbell <[email protected]>
This extracts a new `parse_cfg` function that's used between both.

- Treat `#[doc(cfg(x), cfg(y))]` the same as `#[doc(cfg(x)]
  #[doc(cfg(y))]`. Previously it would be completely ignored.
- Treat `#[doc(inline, cfg(x))]` the same as `#[doc(inline)]
  #[doc(cfg(x))]`. Previously, the cfg would be ignored.
- Pass the cfg predicate through to rustc_expand to be validated

Co-authored-by: Vadim Petrochenkov <[email protected]>
This updates the documentation since `ptr::addr_of!` and
`ptr::addr_of_mut!` are now stable. One might remove the distinction
between the sections `# On packed structs` and `# Examples`, as the old
section on packed structs was primarily to prevent users of doing unde-
fined behavior, which is not necessary anymore.
There is also a new section in "how to obtain a pointer", which referen-
ces the `ptr::addr_of!` macros.

This commit contains squashed commits from code review.

Co-authored-by: Joshua Nelson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Soveu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <[email protected]>
…, r=pnkfelix

Improve diagnostic for when field is never read

Related to (but does not close) rust-lang#81658

This completes the first step of ````@pnkfelix's```` [mentoring instructions](rust-lang#81658 (comment)) but does not actually improve the diagnostics (yet!). The two tests are heavily reduced versions of code from the original bug report.

I've confirmed that the reduced `field-used-in-ffi` test [fails on nightly](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=f0862c89ddca028c55c20a5ed05e679a) but [passes on stable](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=f0862c89ddca028c55c20a5ed05e679a). This confirms that the regression is reproduced correctly. The `drop-only-field` test is a case that ````@pnkfelix```` mentioned in his mentoring instructions. It is not a regression, but will come in handy when we make the diagnostic smarter by looking at whether the field type implements `Drop`.

Per the [rustc-dev-guide](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/adding.html), each test includes a comment summarizing what it is about.
Update `ptr` docs with regards to `ptr::addr_of!`

This updates the documentation since `ptr::addr_of!` and `ptr::addr_of_mut!` are now stable. One might remove the distinction between the sections `# On packed structs` and `# Examples`, as the old section on packed structs was primarily to prevent users of doing undefined behavior, which is not necessary anymore.

Technically there is now wrong/outdated documentation on stable, but I don't think this is worth a point release 😉

Fixes rust-lang#83509.

````@rustbot```` modify labels: T-doc
…albini

Update RELEASES.md for 1.52.0

### [Rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/relnotes-1.52.0/RELEASES.md)

r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
cc ``@rust-lang/release``
Unify rustc and rustdoc parsing of `cfg()`

This extracts a new `parse_cfg` function that's used between both.

- Treat `#[doc(cfg(x), cfg(y))]` the same as `#[doc(cfg(x)]
  #[doc(cfg(y))]`. Previously it would be completely ignored.
- Treat `#[doc(inline, cfg(x))]` the same as `#[doc(inline)]
  #[doc(cfg(x))]`. Previously, the cfg would be ignored.
- Pass the cfg predicate through to rustc_expand to be validated

Technically this is a breaking change, but doc_cfg is still nightly so I don't think it matters.

Fixes rust-lang#84437.

r? ````@petrochenkov````
…nkov

Fix#84467 linker_args with --target=sparcv9-sun-solaris

Trying to cross-compile for sparcv9-sun-solaris
getting a error message for -zignore

Introduced when -z -ignore was seperated here
22d0ab0

No formatting done

Reproduce

``` bash
rustup target add sparcv9-sun-solaris
cargo new --bin hello && cd hello && cargo run --target=sparcv9-sun-solaris
```

config.toml

[target.sparcv9-sun-solaris]
linker = "gcc"
Simplify chdir implementation and minimize unsafe block
…nts, r=tmandry

Report coverage `0` of dead blocks

Fixes: rust-lang#84018

With `-Z instrument-coverage`, coverage reporting of dead blocks
(for example, blocks dropped because a conditional branch is dropped,
based on const evaluation) is now supported.

If `instrument-coverage` is enabled, `simplify::remove_dead_blocks()`
finds all dropped coverage `Statement`s and adds their `code_region`s as
`Unreachable` coverage `Statement`s to the `START_BLOCK`, so they are
still included in the coverage map.

Check out the resulting changes in the test coverage reports in this PR.

I also addressed an outstanding issue/request to move coverage tests from run-make-fulldeps to run-make (in commit 2).

Fixes: rust-lang#83830

r? ````@tmandry````
cc: ````@wesleywiser````
…nkov

Reduce duplication in `impl_dep_tracking_hash` macros

Cherry-picked from rust-lang#84234 since it will be a while until it lands.
…olnay

use else if in std library

Decreases indentation and improves readability
…, r=jyn514

rustdoc: revert deref recur to resume inclusion of impl ExtTrait<Local> for ExtType

As discussed here: rust-lang#82465 (comment), Revert PR rust-lang#80653 to resolve issue rust-lang#82465.

Issue rust-lang#82465 was we had stopped including certain trait implementations, namely implementations on an imported type of an imported trait *instantiated on a local type*. That bug was injected by PR rust-lang#80653.

Reverting rust-lang#80653 means we don't list all the methods that you have accessible via recursively applying `Deref`.

[Discussion in last week's rustc triage meeting](https://zulip-archive.rust-lang.org/238009tcompilermeetings/19557weekly2021042954818.html#236680594) led us to conclude that the bug was worse than the enhancement, and there was not an obvious fix for the bug itself. So for the short term we  remove the enhancement, while in the long term we will work on figuring out a way to have our imported trait implementation cake and eat it too.
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label May 4, 2021
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link
Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2021

📌 Commit 12a95b0 has been approved by Dylan-DPC

@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 May 4, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 12a95b0 with merge 972fa0d547c71d2b453f2e16cfd555dae7458abb...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
DirectMap1G:    55574528 kB
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.17s


failed to execute command: "musl-g++" "-ffunction-sections" "-fdata-sections" "-fPIC" "-m32" "-march=i686" "-Wl,-melf_i386" "-static" "-Wa,-mrelax-relocations=no" "-print-file-name=libstdc++.a"
error: No such file or directory (os error 2)

failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap --stage 2 test --host= --target i586-unknown-linux-gnu,i686-unknown-linux-musl
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:00

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2021

💔 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 May 4, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #84707) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

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.