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

Unused doc comments blocks #94529

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 3, 2022

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Fixes #77030.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Mar 2, 2022
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @estebank

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 2, 2022
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

To be noted: it might need rust-lang/stdarch#1286 to be merged first.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@estebank
Copy link
Contributor

estebank commented Mar 2, 2022

r=me. I wonder how much fallout there will be in the wild.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

None normally since it's a warning. But I expect a few crates to now have this warning. :)

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r=ekuber

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 2, 2022

📌 Commit 6f0eb2a has been approved by ekuber

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 2, 2022
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I failed pretty impressively the r+...

@bors: r=estebank

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 2, 2022

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 2, 2022

📌 Commit 6f0eb2a has been approved by estebank

@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

matthiaskrgr commented Mar 2, 2022

@GuillaumeGomez is the stdarch submodule change intended?

EDIT: ah there is a commit about it :)
Was just gonna make sure this not an "accidentally snuck in during rebase" kind of thing, will add it to the rollup :)

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2022
…blocks, r=estebank

Unused doc comments blocks

Fixes rust-lang#77030.
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Yes it was.

And you saw it so all good. 😆

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2022
Rollup of 9 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#92061 (update char signess for openbsd)
 - rust-lang#93072 (Compatible variants suggestion with desugaring)
 - rust-lang#93354 (Add documentation about `BorrowedFd::to_owned`.)
 - rust-lang#93663 (Rename `BorrowedFd::borrow_raw_fd` to `BorrowedFd::borrow_raw`.)
 - rust-lang#94375 (Adt copy suggestions)
 - rust-lang#94433 (Improve allowness of the unexpected_cfgs lint)
 - rust-lang#94499 (Documentation was missed when demoting Windows XP to no_std only)
 - rust-lang#94505 (Restore the local filter on mono item sorting)
 - rust-lang#94529 (Unused doc comments blocks)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 878a4ff into rust-lang:master Mar 3, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.61.0 milestone Mar 3, 2022
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the unused-doc-comments-blocks branch March 3, 2022 09:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

doc comments on extern blocks are ignored
7 participants