This commit applies rustfmt with rust-lang/rust's default settings to
files in src/libstd *that are not involved in any currently open PR* to
minimize merge conflicts. THe list of files involved in open PRs was
determined by querying GitHub's GraphQL API with this script:
https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/aa9c34993dc051a4f344d1b10e4487e8
With the list of files from the script in outstanding_files, the
relevant commands were:
$ find src/libstd -name '*.rs' \
| xargs rustfmt --edition=2018 --unstable-features --skip-children
$ rg libstd outstanding_files | xargs git checkout --
Repeating this process several months apart should get us coverage of
most of the rest of libstd.
To confirm no funny business:
$ git checkout $THIS_COMMIT^
$ git show --pretty= --name-only $THIS_COMMIT \
| xargs rustfmt --edition=2018 --unstable-features --skip-children
$ git diff $THIS_COMMIT # there should be no difference
std: Remove internal definitions of `cfg_if!` macro
This is duplicated in a few locations throughout the sysroot to work
around issues with not exporting a macro in libstd but still wanting it
available to sysroot crates to define blocks. Nowadays though we can
simply depend on the `cfg-if` crate on crates.io, allowing us to use it
from there!
This is duplicated in a few locations throughout the sysroot to work
around issues with not exporting a macro in libstd but still wanting it
available to sysroot crates to define blocks. Nowadays though we can
simply depend on the `cfg-if` crate on crates.io, allowing us to use it
from there!
Improve the dbg! macro docs
# Description
As stated has been discussed in #58383 the docs do not clearly state why it is useful to have the option to use `dbg!` in release builds as well. This PR should change that.
closes#58383
Cosmetic improvements to doc comments
This has been factored out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58036 to only include changes to documentation comments (throughout the rustc codebase).
r? @steveklabnik
Once you're happy with this, maybe we could get it through with r=1, so it doesn't constantly get invalidated? (I'm not sure this will be an issue, but just in case...) Anyway, thanks for your advice so far!
Update to a new pinning API.
~~Blocked on #53843 because of method resolution problems with new pin type.~~
@r? @cramertj
cc @RalfJung @pythonesque anyone interested in #49150
