A partial stabilization that only affects:
- AllocType<T>::new_uninit
- AllocType<T>::assume_init
- AllocType<[T]>::new_uninit_slice
- AllocType<[T]>::assume_init
where "AllocType" is Box, Rc, or Arc
Clean and enable `rustdoc::unescaped_backticks` for `core/alloc/std/test/proc_macro`
I am not sure if the lint is supposed to be "ready enough" (since it is `allow` by default), but it does catch a couple issues in `core` (`alloc`, `std`, `test` and `proc_macro` are already clean), so I propose making it `warn` in all the crates rendered in the website.
Cc: `@GuillaumeGomez`
Replace some `mem::forget`'s with `ManuallyDrop`
> but I would like to see a larger effort to replace all uses of `mem::forget`.
_Originally posted by `@saethlin` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127584#issuecomment-2226087767_
So,
r? `@saethlin`
Sorry, I have finished writing all of this before I got your response.
Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude
(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)
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 a warning to proc_macro::Delimiter::None that rustc currently does not respect it.
It does not provide the behaviour it is indicated to provide when used in a proc_macro context.
This seems to be a bug, (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67062), but it is a long standing one, and hard to discover.
This pull request adds a warning to inform users of this issue, with a link to the relevant issue, and a version number of the last known affected rustc version.
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.
This just moves the server-relevant parts of handles into `server.rs`.
It introduces a new higher-order macro `with_api_handle_types` to avoid
some duplication.
This fixes two `FIXME` comments, and makes things clearer, by not having
server code in `client.rs`.
Those libraries are build with `-C panic=unwind` and is expected to
be linkable to `-C panic=abort` library. To ensure unsoundness
compiler needs to prevent a `C-unwind` call to exist, as doing so may leak
foreign exceptions into `-C panic=abort`.
Help with common API confusion, like asking for `push` when the data structure really has `append`.
```
error[E0599]: no method named `size` found for struct `Vec<{integer}>` in the current scope
--> $DIR/rustc_confusables_std_cases.rs:17:7
|
LL | x.size();
| ^^^^
|
help: you might have meant to use `len`
|
LL | x.len();
| ~~~
help: there is a method with a similar name
|
LL | x.resize();
| ~~~~~~
```
#59450
Rename MaybeUninit::write_slice
A step to push #79995 forward.
https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/122 also suggested to make them inherent methods, but they can't be — they'd conflict with slice's regular methods.
This mostly works well, and eliminates a couple of delayed bugs.
One annoying thing is that we should really also add an
`ErrorGuaranteed` to `proc_macro::bridge::LitKind::Err`. But that's
difficult because `proc_macro` doesn't have access to `ErrorGuaranteed`,
so we have to fake it.
