Do the same thing as gcc, which use the vendor `mti` to mark
the toolchain as MIPS32r2 default.
We support both big endian and little endian flavor:
mips-mti-none-elf
mipsel-mti-none-elf
Revert #119515 single line where clause style guide
This did not get implemented for the style edition in 2024, so this PR removes it from the documentation.
See tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132381.
This can be added back in the next edition if it gets implemented. I'm a little unclear on what the style team intends for how future changes are documented. For example, the current style-guide documented behavior that rustfmt does not support. I'm not sure who the audience for this document is, or how this is intended to stay in sync with rustfmt. For example, if I read this and assume this is how it is supposed to work, and then rustfmt breaks that, it seems like that is confusing. Similarly, if I'm staying on an older edition, this documentation would be incorrect for my crate.
Perhaps changes like this could be "teed-up" in a PR, but not merged until the edition is stabilized (similar to how the reference works)? And include notes for parts that are edition-specific (so if I am using an older edition, I can see that something is different). In general, I'm a little confused on how this is intended to work.
Reverts:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119515
Add illumos target documentation
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130132#issuecomment-2339055221
`@jclulow` `@pfmooney` I'm adding you as requested.
The page is very barebones (as I do not know illumos well) and could use some improvements (for example in the "Cross-compilation toolchains and C code" section).
Feel free to suggest improvements (or rewrite it from scratch) if you find something.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134870 (Fix sentence fragment in `pin` module docs)
- #134884 (Fix typos)
- #134892 (Added codegen test for elidings bounds check when indexes are manually checked)
- #134894 (Document how to run the split Docker pipelines)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
* Remove properly tracked config file from .gitignore
The file is part of the git history and is a configuration file.
Fixes: #2018
* Add env. variable support
* Refactoring
* Really skip linkcheck if requested
Improve default target options for x86_64-unknown-linux-none
Without a standard library, we cannot unwind, so it should be panic=abort by default.
Additionally, it does not have std because while it is Linux, it cannot use libc, which std uses today for Linux.
Using PIE by default may be surprising to users, as shown in #134763, so I've documented it explicitly. I'm not sure if we want to count that as fixing the issue or not.
cc `@morr0ne,` as you added the target (and are the maintainer), and `@Noratrieb,` who reviewed that PR (:D).
Revert stabilization of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
Due to a process mixup, the PR to stabilize the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute (#130766) was merged while there are still outstanding concerns. The default action in that situation is to revert, and the feature is not sufficiently urgent or uncontroversial to justify special treatment, so this PR reverts that stabilization.
---
- A key point that came up in offline discussions is that unlike most user-facing features, this one never had a proper RFC, so parts of the normal stabilization process that implicitly rely on an RFC break down in this case.
- As the implementor and de-facto owner of the feature in its current form, I would like to think that I made good choices in designing and implementing it, but I don't feel comfortable proceeding to stabilization without further scrutiny.
- There hasn't been a clear opportunity for T-compiler to weigh in or express concerns prior to stabilization.
- The stabilization PR cites a T-lang FCP that occurred in the tracking issue, but due to the messy design and implementation history (and lack of a clear RFC), it's unclear what that FCP approval actually represents in this case.
- At the very least, we should not proceed without a clear statement from T-lang or the relevant members about the team's stance on this feature, especially in light of the other concerns listed here.
- The existing user-facing documentation doesn't clearly reflect which parts of the feature are stable commitments, and which parts are subject to change. And there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus anywhere about where that line is actually drawn, or whether the chosen boundary is acceptable to the relevant teams and individuals.
- For example, the [stabilization report comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660) mentions that some aspects are subject to change, but that text isn't consistent with my earlier comments, and there doesn't appear to have been any explicit discussion or approval process.
- [The current reference text](4dfaa4f/src/attributes/coverage-instrumentation.md) doesn't mention this distinction at all, and instead simply describes the current implementation behaviour.
- When the implementation was changed to its current form, the associated user-facing error messages were not updated, so they still refer to the attribute only being allowed on functions and closures.
- On its own, this might have been reasonable to fix-forward in the absence of other concerns, but the fact that it never came up earlier highlights the breakdown in process that has occurred here.
---
Apologies to everyone who was excited for this stabilization to land, but unfortunately it simply isn't ready yet.
