Rollup of 6 pull requests #128230
Closed
Rollup of 6 pull requests #128230
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
This has been bugging me for a while. I find complex "if any of these are true" conditions easier to think about than complex "if all of these are true" conditions, because you can stop as soon as one is true.
It has a single call site. This change makes the two `needs_collect` conditions more similar to each other, and therefore easier to understand.
And make it non-`pub`.
I have always found `is_complete` an unhelpful name. The new name (and inverted sense) fits in better with the conditions at its call sites.
The current code is this: ``` self.capture_state.replace_ranges.push((start_pos..end_pos, Some(target))); self.capture_state.replace_ranges.extend(inner_attr_replace_ranges); ``` What's not obvious is that every range in `inner_attr_replace_ranges` must be a strict sub-range of `start_pos..end_pos`. Which means, in `LazyAttrTokenStreamImpl::to_attr_token_stream`, they will be done first, and then the `start_pos..end_pos` replacement will just overwrite them. So they aren't needed.
Imagine you have replace ranges (2..20,X) and (5..15,Y), and these tokens: ``` a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x ``` If we replace (5..15,Y) first, then (2..20,X) we get this sequence ``` a,b,c,d,e,Y,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x a,b,X,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,u,v,w,x ``` which is what we want. If we do it in the other order, we get this: ``` a,b,X,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x a,b,X,_,_,Y,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,u,v,w,x ``` which is wrong. So it's true that we need the `.rev()` but the comment is wrong about why.
A fully imperative style is easier to read than a half-iterator, half-imperative style. Also, rename `inner_attr` as `attr` because it might be an outer attribute.
Support ?Trait bounds in supertraits and dyn Trait under a feature gate
This patch allows `maybe` polarity bounds under a feature gate. The only language change here is that corresponding hard errors are replaced by feature gates. Example:
```rust
#![feature(allow_maybe_polarity)]
...
trait Trait1 : ?Trait { ... } // ok
fn foo(_: Box<(dyn Trait2 + ?Trait)>) {} // ok
fn bar<T: ?Sized + ?Trait>(_: &T) {} // ok
```
Maybe bounds still don't do anything (except for `Sized` trait), however this patch will allow us to [experiment with default auto traits](rust-lang#120706 (comment)).
This is a part of the [MCP: Low level components for async drop](rust-lang/compiler-team#727)
…wiser allow overwriting the output of `rustc --version` Our wonderful bisection folk [have to work around](rust-lang#123276 (comment)) crates that do incomplete nightly/feature detection, as otherwise the bisection just points to where the feature detection breaks, and not to the actual breakage they are looking for. This is also annoying behaviour to nightly users who did not opt-in to those nightly features. Most nightly users want to be in control of the nightly breakage they get, by * choosing when to update rustc * choosing when to update dependencies * choosing which nightly features they are willing to take the breakage for The reason this breakage occurs is that the build script of some crates run `rustc --version`, and if the version looks like nightly or dev, it will enable nightly features. These nightly features may break in random ways whenever we change something in nightly, so every release of such a crate will only work with a small range of nightly releases. This causes bisection to fail whenever it tries an unsupported nightly, even though that crate is not related to the bisection at all, but is just an unrelated dependency. This PR (and the policy I want to establish with this FCP) is only for situations like the `version_check`'s `supports_feature` function. It is explicitly not for `autocfg` or similar feature-detection-by-building-rust-code, irrespective of my opinions on it and the similarity of nightly breakage that can occur with such schemes. These cause much less breakage, but should the breakage become an issue, they should get covered by this policy, too. This PR allows changing the version and release strings reported by `rustc --version` via the `RUSTC_OVERRIDE_VERSION_STRING` env var. The bisection issue is then fixed by rust-lang/cargo-bisect-rustc#335. I mainly want to establish a compiler team policy: > We do not consider feature detection on nightly (on stable via compiler version numbering is fine) a valid use case that we need to support, and if it causes problems, we are at liberty to do what we deem best - either actively working to prevent it or to actively ignore it. We may try to work with responsive and cooperative authors, but are not obligated to. Should they subvert the workarounds that nightly users or cargo-bisect-rustc can use, we should be able to land rustc PRs that target the specific crates that cause issues for us and outright replace their build script's logic to disable nightly detection. I am not including links to crates, PRs or issues here, as I don't actually care about the specific use cases and don't want to make it trivial to go there and leave comments. This discussion is going to be interesting enough on its own, without branching out.
…s, r=petrochenkov Refactor complex conditions in `collect_tokens_trailing_token` More readability improvements for this complicated function. r? `@petrochenkov`
…r=petrochenkov Remove unnecessary range replacements This PR removes an unnecessary range replacement in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`, and does a couple of other small cleanups. r? `@petrochenkov`
…etrochenkov Remove redundant option that was just encoding that a slice was empty There is already a sanity check ensuring we don't put empty attribute lists into the HIR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6ef11b81c2c02c3c4b7556d1991a98572fe9af87/compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs#L661-L667
…ix, r=tgross35 CI: do not respect custom try jobs for unrolled perf builds Before this PR, if a pull request merged in a rollup had some `try-job` annotations, the unrolled perf builds were running the custom try jobs instead of the default job, which was wrong. Found out [here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/try-perf.20jobs.20respect.20try-job.20annotations).
rustbot
added
A-testsuite
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=6 |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#121676 (Support ?Trait bounds in supertraits and dyn Trait under a feature gate) - rust-lang#124339 (allow overwriting the output of `rustc --version`) - rust-lang#128223 (Refactor complex conditions in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`) - rust-lang#128224 (Remove unnecessary range replacements) - rust-lang#128226 (Remove redundant option that was just encoding that a slice was empty) - rust-lang#128227 (CI: do not respect custom try jobs for unrolled perf builds) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
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.
Successful merges:
rustc --version#124339 (allow overwriting the output ofrustc --version)collect_tokens_trailing_token#128223 (Refactor complex conditions incollect_tokens_trailing_token)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup