Rollup of 8 pull requests #73823
Closed
Rollup of 8 pull requests #73823
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…unction Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
This new version includes a fix for building on aarch64 windows.
Added io forwarding methods to the stdio structs Added methods to forward the `io::Read` and `io::Write` methods of the myriad wrapper structs in `stdio.rs` to their underlying readers / writers. This is especially important for the structs on the outside of a locking boundary, to ensure that the lock isn't being dropped and re-acquired in a loop.
…ewjasper MIR sanity check: validate types on assignment This expands the MIR validation added by @jonas-schievink in rust-lang#72093 to also check that on an assignment, the types of both sides match. Cc @eddyb @oli-obk
…Amanieu Add documentation to point to `File::open` or `OpenOptions::open` instead of `is_file` to check read/write possibility Fixes rust-lang#64170. This adds documentation to point user towards `!is_dir` instead of `is_file` when all they want to is read from a source. I ran `rg "fn is_file\("` to find all `is_file` methods, I hope I did not miss one.
Prepare for LLVM 11 These are just the code changes needed to build with the current LLVM master (version 11). r? @nikic
Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f… …unction This is a somewhat simple fix for rust-lang#66731. Under the current version of Rust, if a user has a rust file that looks like this: ```rust fn boo (){} async fn foo() { boo().await; } fn main() { } ``` And they attempt to run it, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error: incorrect use of `await` --> test.rs:4:14 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^ help: `await` is not a method call, remove the parentheses error[E0277]: the trait bound `fn() {boo}: std::future::Future` is not satisfied --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `fn() {boo}` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. ``` This is not very clear. With the changes made in this PR, when a user compiles and runs that same rust code, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error[E0277]: `()` is not a future. --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo().await; | ^^^^^^^^^^^ `()` is not a future | = help: the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `()` = note: required by `std::future::Future::poll` ``` In the future, I think we should make this error message even clearer, perhaps through a solution like the one described in [this comment](rust-lang#66731 (comment)). However, as that potentially involves a major change proposal, I would rather get this change in now and make the error message a little clearer while an MCP is drafted and discussed. Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
Update psm version This new version includes a fix for building on aarch64 windows. cc rust-lang#72881
fix typo in self-profile.md
Forward Hash::write_iN to Hash::write_uN The `Hasher::write_iN()` methods should forward to `Hasher::write_uN()`, because some Hasher implementations implement only the `write_uN()` variants, with the expectation that `write_iN()` will use the same implementation. Most notably, this is the case for the [FxHasher](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-hash/blob/5e09ea0a1c7ab7e4f9e27771f5a0e5a36c58d1bb/src/lib.rs#L111) used by rustc itself. This used to be the case previously, but was broken in rust-lang#59982. As the PR description makes no mention of this particular change, I assume it was unintentional. In a local test, this mitigates the regression from rust-lang#73526 on at least one test-case (cc @cuviper), because we're no longer at the mercy of `FxHasher::write()` getting inlined to get reasonable performance.
| @bors r+ rollup=never p=8 |
| 📌 Commit 3bf9c9d has been approved by |
bors added the S-waiting-on-bors | @bors retry |
| ⌛ Testing commit 3bf9c9d with merge d669f807d63faf31ed6ddefeb102a8e37a1dedd9... |
| @bors retry r- Dropped a PR to never roll up status. |
bors added S-waiting-on-author 
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
12 participants
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:
File::openorOpenOptions::openinstead ofis_fileto check read/write possibility #73243 (Add documentation to point toFile::openorOpenOptions::openinstead ofis_fileto check read/write possibility)Failed merges:
r? @ghost