Rollup of 11 pull requests #30826
Merged
Rollup of 11 pull requests #30826
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
nagisa
commented
Jan 11, 2016
nagisa
commented
- Successful merges: Remove negate_unsigned feature gate #30538, Undo whitespace tweaks pending libbacktrace merge #30687, Proper first and follow sets for macro_rules future proofing #30694, Stop re-exporting MutateMode's variants. #30737, [MIR] Change destination accessor to return references #30761, Expand EO308 to mention try! #30768, [MIR] Fix translation of ConstVal::{Struct, Tuple} #30774, Fix a typo in rustc_mir::build::scope's documentation #30798, Remove unneeded #[lang = "iterator"] #30808, Fix link in getting-started.md #30812, doc: Add descriptions to links in the index #30814
- Failed merges:
These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just isn't worth our time.
…s validity. See RFC amendment 1384 and tracking issue 30450: rust-lang/rfcs#1384 rust-lang#30450 Moved old check_matcher code into check_matcher_old combined the two checks to enable a warning cycle (where we will continue to error if the two checks agree to reject, accept if the new check says accept, and warn if the old check accepts but the new check rejects).
See RFC amendment 1384: rust-lang/rfcs#1384
run-pass test for some new functionality.
macro future proofing rules. (We may want to think about what this test was actually testing and figure out a way to test it without running afoul of macro future proofing. I spent some time trying to do this, e.g. by inserting parenthesis in the macro input pattern, but I could not quickly get it working, so I took this tack instead.)
Previously it was returning a value, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode.
These are the same descriptions as on the website.
…n, r=pnkfelix fixes rust-lang#29645
These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just isn't worth our time.
…low, r=nrc Proper first and follow sets for macro_rules future proofing implements first stage of RFC amendment 1384; see rust-lang#30450
…elwoerister Previously it was returning a clone, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode. r? @nikomatsakis
…elb1 Fixes rust-lang#30772 We used to have a untested special case which didn’t really work anyway, because of lacking casts. This PR removes the case in question.
…alexcrichton Fixes rust-lang#30803 r? @nagisa
These are the same descriptions as on the website. re https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/409nlo/i_just_noticed_the_docs_nightly_all_docs_got_more/cytc4ab r? @steveklabnik
|
@bors r+ p=1 |
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
📌 Commit 8dd7eab has been approved by |
|
💔 Test failed - auto-linux-32-opt |
|
@bors retry |
|
⚡ Previous build results for auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-debug-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-linux-cross-opt, auto-linux-musl-64-opt, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-gnu-32-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-32-opt, auto-win-msvc-32-opt are reusable. Rebuilding only auto-linux-32-opt, auto-win-gnu-64-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-64-opt, auto-win-msvc-64-opt... |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.