| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
r=Manisheart,GuillaumeGomez
rustdoc: Resolve module-level doc references more locally
Module level docs should resolve intra-doc links as locally as
possible. As such, this commit alters the heuristic for finding
intra-doc links such that we attempt to resolve names mentioned
in *inner* documentation comments within the (sub-)module rather
that from the context of its parent.
I'm hoping that this fixes #55364 though right now I'm not sure it's the right fix.
r? @GuillaumeGomez
|
|
Module level docs should resolve intra-doc links as locally as
possible. As such, this commit alters the heuristic for finding
intra-doc links such that we attempt to resolve names mentioned
in *inner* documentation comments within the (sub-)module rather
that from the context of its parent.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@digital-scurf.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
rustdoc: forward -Z options to rustc
Currently rustdoc does not forward `-Z` options to rustc when building
test executables. This makes impossible to use rustdoc to run test
samples when crate under test is instrumented with one of sanitizers
`-Zsanitizer=...`, since the final linking step will not include
sanitizer runtime library.
Forward `-Z` options to rustc to solve the issue.
Helps with #43031.
|
|
The issue is rustdoc-specific because its root cause if the `everybody_loops` pass makes some def-ids to not have local hir-ids
|
|
Currently rustdoc does not forward `-Z` options to rustc when building
test executables. This makes impossible to use rustdoc to run test
samples when crate under test is instrumented with one of sanitizers
`-Zsanitizer=...`, since the final linking step will not include
sanitizer runtime library.
Forward `-Z` options to rustc to solve the issue.
Helps with #43031.
|
|
|
|
Fix ICE in rustdoc when merging generic and where bounds of an Fn with an output
Fixes #57180
|
|
Rustdoc render async function re-export
Closes #63710
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
This ensures that we match the order used by proc macro metadata
serialization.
Fixes #64251
|
|
Account for doc comments coming from proc macros without spans
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63821.
|
|
Hide trait default methods
Fixes #62499.
However, the question remains: do we want to extend it to this point or not?
r? @QuietMisdreavus
|
|
Improve Rustdoc's handling of procedural macros
Fixes #58700
Fixes #58696
Fixes #49553
Fixes #52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support `impl Trait` in inlined documentation
`impl Trait` in argument position was not properly rendered when inlined from other crates. ([a live example on docs.rs](https://docs.rs/libp2p/0.8.1/libp2p/floodsub/struct.Floodsub.html#method.unsubscribe))
↓
|
|
Fixes #58700
Fixes #58696
Fixes #49553
Fixes #52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we
can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This
takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all
values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc
to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to
Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing
in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not listed methods
Fixes #60326.
cc @rust-lang/rustdoc
r? @QuietMisdreavus
|
|
|
|
Use doc comments from 'pub use' statements
Split off from #62855
Currently, rustdoc ignores any doc comments found on 'pub use'
statements. As described in issue #58700, this makes it impossible to
properly document procedural macros. Any doc comments must be written on
the procedural macro definition, which must occur in a dedicated
proc-macro crate. This means that any doc comments or doc tests cannot
reference items defined in re-exporting crate, despite the fact that
such items may be required to use the procedural macro.
To solve this issue, this commit allows doc comments to be written on
'pub use' statements. For consistency, this applies to *all* 'pub use'
statements, not just those importing procedural macros.
When inlining documentation, documentation on 'pub use' statements will
be prepended to the documentation of the inlined item. For example,
the following items:
```rust
mod other_mod {
/// Doc comment from definition
pub struct MyStruct;
}
/// Doc comment from 'pub use'
///
pub use other_mod::MyStruct;
```
will caues the documentation for the re-export of 'MyStruct' to be
rendered as:
```
Doc comment from 'pub use'
Doc comment from definition
```
Note the empty line in the 'pub use' doc comments - because doc comments
are concatenated as-is, this ensure that the doc comments on the
definition start on a new line.
|
|
Add keywords item into the sidebar
Fixes #62939.
cc @pravic
screenshot of the result:
r? @QuietMisdreavus
|
|
Split off from #62855
Currently, rustdoc ignores any doc comments found on 'pub use'
statements. As described in issue #58700, this makes it impossible to
properly document procedural macros. Any doc comments must be written on
the procedural macro definition, which must occur in a dedicated
proc-macro crate. This means that any doc comments or doc tests cannot
reference items defined in re-exporting crate, despite the fact that
such items may be required to use the procedural macro.
To solve this issue, this commit allows doc comments to be written on
'pub use' statements. For consistency, this applies to *all* 'pub use'
statements, not just those importing procedural macros.
When inlining documentation, documentation on 'pub use' statements will
be prepended to the documentation of the inlined item. For example,
the following items:
```rust
mod other_mod {
/// Doc comment from definition
pub struct MyStruct;
}
/// Doc comment from 'pub use'
///
pub use other_mod::MyStruct;
```
will caues the documentation for the re-export of 'MyStruct' to be
rendered as:
```
Doc comment from 'pub use'
Doc comment from definition
```
Note the empty line in the 'pub use' doc comments - because doc comments
are concatenated as-is, this ensure that the doc comments on the
definition start on a new line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's internal to resolve and always results in `Res::Err` outside of resolve.
Instead put `DefKind::Fn`s themselves into the macro namespace, it's ok.
Proc macro stubs are items placed into macro namespase for functions that define proc macros.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52383
The rustdoc test is changed because the old test didn't actually reproduce the ICE it was supposed to reproduce.
|
|
Raise the default recursion limit to 128
The previous limit of 64 is being (just) barely hit by genuine code out there, which is causing issues like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62059 to rear their end.
Ideally, we wouldn’t have such arbitrary limits at all, but while we do, it makes a lot of sense to just raise this limit whenever genuine use-cases end up hitting it.
r? @pnkfelix
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62059
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 6bb6c001be34d0932a014df981ee18f165c43374.
|
|
Previously we would only generate a list of synthetic implementations
for two well known traits – Send and Sync. With this patch all the auto
traits known to rustc are considered. This includes such traits like
Unpin and user’s own traits.
Sadly the implementation still iterates through the list of crate items
and checks them against the traits, which for non-std crates containing
their own auto-traits will still not include types defined in std/core.
It is an improvement nontheless.
|
|
|
|
Don't generate div inside header (h4/h3/h...) elements
Fixes #60865.
According to the HTML spec, we're not supposed to put `div` elements inside heading elements (h4/h3/h...). It doesn't change the display as far as I could tell.
r? @QuietMisdreavus
|
|
implicit `Option`-returning doctests
This distinguishes `Option` and `Result`-returning doctests with implicit `main` method, where the former tests must end with `Some(())`.
Open question: Does this need a feature gate?
r? @GuillaumeGomez
|
|
upgrade rustdoc's `pulldown-cmark` to 0.5.2
Fixes #60482.
|
|
Fixes #60482.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This distinguishes `Option` and `Result`-returning doctests with
implicit `main` method, where the former tests must end with
`Some(())`.
|
|
Always try to project predicates when finding auto traits in rustdoc
Fixes #60726
Previous, AutoTraitFinder would only try to project predicates when the
predicate type contained an inference variable. When finding auto
traits, we only project to try to unify inference variables - we don't
otherwise learn any new information about the required bounds.
However, this lead to failing to properly generate a negative auto trait
impl (indicating that a type never implements a certain auto trait) in
the following unusual scenario:
In almost all cases, a type has an (implicit) negative impl of an auto
trait due some other type having an explicit *negative* impl of that
auto trait. For example:
struct MyType<T> {
field: *const T
}
has an implicit 'impl<T> !Send for MyType<T>', due to the explicit
negative impl (in libcore) 'impl<T: ?Sized> !Send for *const T'.
However, as exposed by the 'abi_stable' crate, this isn't always the
case. This minimzed example shows how a type can never implement
'Send', due to a projection error:
```
pub struct True;
pub struct False;
pub trait MyTrait {
type Project;
}
pub struct MyStruct<T> {
field: T
}
impl MyTrait for u8 {
type Project = False;
}
unsafe impl<T> Send for MyStruct<T>
where T: MyTrait<Project=True> {}
pub struct Wrapper {
inner: MyStruct<u8>
}
```
In this example, `<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == True'
must hold for 'MyStruct<u8>: Send' to hold.
However, '<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == False' holds instead
To properly account for this unusual case, we need to call
'poly_project_and_unify' on *all* predicates, not just those with
inference variables. This ensures that we catch the projection error
that occurs above, and don't incorrectly determine that 'Wrapper: Send'
holds.
|
