| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
Rename files about error codes
fixes #60017
This PR will be failed in tidy.
<details>
<summary>The log is here:</summary>
```
tidy check
tidy error: duplicate error code: 411
tidy error: Documents\GitHub\rust\src\librustc_resolve\diagnostics.rs:83: __diagnostic_used!(E0411);
tidy error: Documents\GitHub\rust\src\librustc_resolve\diagnostics.rs:84: err.code(DiagnosticId::Error("E0411".to_owned()));
tidy error: duplicate error code: 424
tidy error: Documents\GitHub\rust\src\librustc_resolve\diagnostics.rs:90: debug!("smart_resolve_path_fragment: E0424, source={:?}", source);
tidy error: Documents\GitHub\rust\src\librustc_resolve\diagnostics.rs:92: __diagnostic_used!(E0424);
tidy error: Documents\GitHub\rust\src\librustc_resolve\diagnostics.rs:93: err.code(DiagnosticId::Error("E0424".to_owned()));
some tidy checks failed
```
</details>
I'd like to fix this but I don't know what to do.
I will work on later. Please let me know if you have any solutions.
r? @petrochenkov
|
|
|
|
|
|
- libarena
- librustc_allocator
- librustc_borrowck
- librustc_codegen_ssa
- librustc_codegen_utils
- librustc_driver
- librustc_errors
- librustc_incremental
- librustc_metadata
- librustc_passes
- librustc_privacy
- librustc_resolve
- librustc_save_analysis
- librustc_target
- librustc_traits
- libsyntax
- libsyntax_ext
- libsyntax_pos
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will allow us to send it across threads and measure things like
LLVM time.
|
|
This commit updates the LLVM branch to the rebased version of the
upstream release/8.x branch. This includes a wasm patch which means that
the `rewrite_imports` pass in rustc is no longer needed (yay!) and we
can instead rely on `wasm-import-module`, an attribute we're already
emitting, to take care of all the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cosmetic improvements to doc comments
This has been factored out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58036 to only include changes to documentation comments (throughout the rustc codebase).
r? @steveklabnik
Once you're happy with this, maybe we could get it through with r=1, so it doesn't constantly get invalidated? (I'm not sure this will be an issue, but just in case...) Anyway, thanks for your advice so far!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|