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 9 pull requests #76650

Closed
wants to merge 33 commits into from

Conversation

Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

m-ou-se and others added 30 commits August 13, 2020 19:16
The atomic equivalent of Cell::from_mut.
The alignment doesn't match on x86_64.
Fixes rust-lang#76182

This is an alternative to PR rust-lang#76188

These tokens are not preserved in the AST in certain cases
(e.g. a leading `|` in a pattern or a trailing `+` in a trait bound).

This PR ignores them entirely during the pretty-print/reparse check
to avoid spuriously using the re-parsed tokenstream.
These tests will fall without the next commit.
Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Joshua Nelson <joshua@yottadb.com>
* Fix `const-display.rs` XPATH queries

* Add `issue_76501.rs` test file

* Rename issue_76501.rs to issue-76501.rs
…n514

Ignore rustc_private items from std docs

By ignoring rustc_private items for non local impl block,
this may fix rust-lang#74672 and fix rust-lang#75588 .

This might suppress rust-lang#76529 if it is simple enough for backport.
…chenkov

Ignore `|` and `+` tokens during proc-macro pretty-print check

Fixes rust-lang#76182

This is an alternative to PR rust-lang#76188

These tokens are not preserved in the AST in certain cases
(e.g. a leading `|` in a pattern or a trailing `+` in a trait bound).

This PR ignores them entirely during the pretty-print/reparse check
to avoid spuriously using the re-parsed tokenstream.
…k-Simulacrum

Add a dedicated debug-logging option to config.toml

@Mark-Simulacrum and I were talking in zulip and we found that turning on debug/trace logging in rustc is fairly confusing, as it effectively depends on debug-assertions and is not documented as such. @Mark-Simulacrum mentioned that we should probably have a separate option for logging anyways.

this diff adds that, having the option follow debug-assertions (so everyone's existing config.toml should be fine) and if the option is false

to test I ran ./x.py test <something> twice, once with `debug-logging = false` and once with `debug-logging = true` and made sure i only saw trace's when it was true
…stebank

Fixing memory exhaustion when formatting short code suggestion

Details can be found in issue rust-lang#76597. This PR replaces substractions with `saturating_sub`'s to avoid usize wrapping leading to memory exhaustion when formatting short suggestion messages.
Use `is_unstable_const_fn` instead of `is_min_const_fn` in rustdoc where appropriate

This closes rust-lang#76501. Specifically, it allows for nightly users with the `#![feature(const_fn)]` flag enabled to still have their `const fn` declarations documented as such, while retaining the desired behavior that rustdoc *not* document functions that have the `rustc_const_unstable` attribute as `const`.
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link
Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=9

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2020

📌 Commit 55643ee 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 Sep 12, 2020
@m-ou-se m-ou-se mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 55643ee with merge ece4540be51b65f1892ec923068e82bb13939493...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 12, 2020

💔 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 Sep 12, 2020
@Dylan-DPC-zz Dylan-DPC-zz deleted the rollup-lzkrgza branch September 12, 2020 21:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.

None yet