| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Also make it *only* usable on nightly
|
|
In [137653], the lang and libs-API teams did a joint FCP to deprecate
and eventually remove the long-unstable `concat_idents!` macro. The
deprecation is landing in 1.88, so do the removal here (target version
1.90).
This macro has been superseded by the more recent `${concat(...)}`
metavariable expression language feature, which avoids some of the
limitations of `concat_idents!`. The metavar expression is unstably
available under the [`macro_metavar_expr_concat`] feature.
History is mildly interesting here: `concat_idents!` goes back to 2011
when it was introduced with 513276e595f8 ("Add #concat_idents[] and
about the same:
let asdf_fdsa = "<.<";
assert(#concat_idents[asd,f_f,dsa] == "<.<");
assert(#ident_to_str[use_mention_distinction]
== "use_mention_distinction");
(That test existed from introduction until its removal here.)
Closes: https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29599
[137653]: https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137653
[`macro_metavar_expr_concat`]: https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124225
|
|
|
|
`concat_idents` has been around unstably for a long time, but there is
now a better (but still unstable) way to join identifiers using
`${concat(...)}` syntax with `macro_metavar_expr_concat`. This resolves
a lot of the problems with `concat_idents` and is on a better track
toward stabilization, so there is no need to keep both versions around.
`concat_idents!` still has a lot of use in the ecosystem so deprecate it
before removing, as discussed in [1].
Link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124225
[1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/219381-t-libs/topic/Removing.20.60concat_idents.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to implement edition migrations without having a perma-unstable
"future" edition to target.
|
|
This fixes the issues described in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136102. Primarily, this
resolves some issues with how the documentation for the prelude is
generated:
- It avoids showing "unstable" for macros in the prelude that are
actually stable.
- Avoids duplication of some pages due to the previous lack of
`doc(no_inline)`.
- Makes the different edition preludes consistent, and sets a pattern
that can be used by future editions.
We may need to rearrange these modules in the future if we decide to
remove anything from the prelude again. If we do, I think we should look
into a different solution that avoids the documentation problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
|
|
|
|
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop using `box PAT` syntax for deref patterns, as it's misleading and
also causes their semantics being tangled up.
|
|
Implements RFC 3509.
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit abc0660118cc95f47445fd33502a11dd448f5968.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Takayuki Maeda <takoyaki0316@gmail.com>
|
|
This macro serves as a placeholder for future type ascription syntax to
make sure that the semantic implementation keeps working.
|
|
Add the `#[derive_const]` attribute
Closes #102371. This is a minimal patchset for the attribute to work. There are no restrictions on what traits this attribute applies to.
r? `````@oli-obk`````
|
|
The new implementation doesn't use weak lang items and instead changes
`#[alloc_error_handler]` to an attribute macro just like
`#[global_allocator]`.
The attribute will generate the `__rg_oom` function which is called by
the compiler-generated `__rust_alloc_error_handler`. If no `__rg_oom`
function is defined in any crate then the compiler shim will call
`__rdl_oom` in the alloc crate which will simply panic.
This also fixes link errors with `-C link-dead-code` with
`default_alloc_error_handler`: `__rg_oom` was previously defined in the
alloc crate and would attempt to reference the `oom` lang item, even if
it didn't exist. This worked as long as `__rg_oom` was excluded from
linking since it was not called.
This is a prerequisite for the stabilization of
`default_alloc_error_handler` (#102318).
|
|
|
|
It looks like the last time had left some remaining cfg's -- which made me think
that the stage0 bump was actually successful. This brings us to a released 1.62
beta though.
|
|
Create (unstable) 2024 edition
[On Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Deprecating.20macro.20scoping.20shenanigans/near/272860652), there was a small aside regarding creating the 2024 edition now as opposed to later. There was a reasonable amount of support and no stated opposition.
This change creates the 2024 edition in the compiler and creates a prelude for the 2024 edition. There is no current difference between the 2021 and 2024 editions. Cargo and other tools will need to be updated separately, as it's not in the same repository. This change permits the vast majority of work towards the next edition to proceed _now_ instead of waiting until 2024.
For sanity purposes, I've merged the "hello" UI tests into a single file with multiple revisions. Otherwise we'd end up with a file per edition, despite them being essentially identical.
````@rustbot```` label +T-lang +S-waiting-on-review
Not sure on the relevant team, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Do not `#[doc(hidden)]` the `#[derive]` macro attribute
- Add a link to the reference section to `derive`'s inherent docs
- Do the same for `#[test]` and `#[global_allocator]`
- Fix `GlobalAlloc` link (why is it on `core` and not `alloc`?)
- Try `no_inline`-ing the `std` reexports from `core`
- Revert "Try `no_inline`-ing the `std` reexports from `core`"
- Address PR review
- Also document the unstable macros
|
|
They are also removed from the prelude as per the decision in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87228.
stdarch and compiler-builtins are updated to work with the new, stable
asm! and global_asm! macros.
|
|
The tracking issue for this is #87555.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make documentation of which items the prelude exports more readable.
I recently figured out that rustdoc allows link inside of inline code blocks as long as they’re delimited with `<code> </code>` instead of `` ` ` ``. I think this applies nicely in the listing of prelude exports [in the docs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/prelude/index.html). There, currently unformatted `::` and `{ , }` is used in order to mimick import syntax while attatching links to individual identifiers.
## Rendered Comparison
### Currently (light)
### After this PR (light)
### Currently (dark)
### After this PR (dark)
### Currently (ayu)
### After this PR (ayu)
_Edit:_ I just noticed, the “current” screenshots are from stable, so there are a few more differences in the pictures than the ones from just this PR.
|
|
|
|
|
