Rename rustc guide
This is in preparation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-guide/issues/470
Needs to be merged after we actually rename the guide.
Have used this to rename:
`git grep -l 'rustc_guide' | xargs sed -i 's/rustc_guide/rustc_dev_guide/g'`
`git grep -l 'rustc-guide' | xargs sed -i 's/rustc-guide/rustc-dev-guide/g'`
`git grep -l 'rustc guide' | xargs sed -i 's/rustc guide/rustc dev guide/g'`
Improve expression & attribute parsing
This PR includes misc improvements to expression and attribute parsing.
1. Some code simplifications
2. Better recovery for various block forms, e.g. `loop statements }` (missing `{` after `loop`). (See e.g., `block-no-opening-brace.rs` among others for examples.)
3. Added recovery for e.g., `unsafe $b` where `$b` refers to a `block` macro fragment. (See `bad-interpolated-block.rs` for examples.)
4. ^--- These are done so that code sharing in block parsing is increased.
5. Added recovery for e.g., `'label: loop { ... }` (See `labeled-no-colon-expr.rs`.)
6. Added recovery for e.g., `&'lifetime expr` (See `regions-out-of-scope-slice.rs`.)
7. Added recovery for e.g., `fn foo() = expr;` (See `fn-body-eq-expr-semi.rs`.)
8. Simplified attribute parsing code & slightly improved diagnostics.
9. Added recovery for e.g., `Box<('a) + Trait>`.
10. Added recovery for e.g, `if true #[attr] {} else #[attr] {} else #[attr] if true {}`.
r? @estebank
--show-coverage json
The purpose of this change is to be able to use it as a tool in docs.rs in order to provide some more stats to crates' owners. Eventually even create a badge or something along the line.
r? @QuietMisdreavus
parse: Tweak the function parameter edition check
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69801.
Edition of a code fragment is inferred from "the place where the code is written".
For individual tokens like edition-specific keywords it may be the span of the token itself ("uninterpolated" span), but for larger code fragments it's probably not, in the test example the trait method is obviously written in "2015 edition code".
r? @Centril
Exhaustiveness checking, `Matrix::push`: recursively expand or-patterns
> There's an implicit invariant that there should be no or-patterns directly in the first column of the matrix, but this invariant is broken exactly when an or-pattern has a child that is itself an or-pattern.
Here we preserve this broken invariant by recursively expanding `PatKind::Or`s in `Matrix::push`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69875.
r? @varkor
cc @Nadrieril
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883
make `mem::discriminant` const
implements #69821, which could be used as a tracking issue for `const_discriminant`.
Should this be added to the meta tracking issue #57563?
@Lokathor
Use TypeRelating for instantiating query responses
`eq` can add constraints to `RegionConstraintData`, which isn't allowed during borrow checking outside of a `CustomTypeOp`. Use `TypeRelating` instead to always push constraints to the obligations list.
closes#69490
Stabilize const for integer {to,from}_{be,le,ne}_bytes methods
All of these functions can be implemented simply and naturally as const functions, e.g. `u32::from_le_bytes` can be implemented as
```rust
(bytes[0] as u32)
| (bytes[1] as u32) << 8
| (bytes[2] as u32) << 16
| (bytes[3] as u32) << 24
```
So stabilizing the constness will not expose that internally they are implemented using transmute which is not const in stable.
Cleanup `rmeta::MacroDef`
Avoid using rountrip parsing in the encoder and in `fn load_macro_untracked`.
The main reason I was interested in this was to remove `rustc_parse` as a dependency of `rustc_metadata` but it seems like this had other benefits as well.
Fixes#49511.
r? @eddyb
cc @matthewjasper @estebank @petrochenkov
Remove spotlight
I had a few comments saying that this feature was at best misunderstood or not even used so I decided to organize a poll about on [twitter](https://twitter.com/imperioworld_/status/1232769353503956994). After 87 votes, the result is very clear: it's not useful. Considering the amount of code we have just to run it, I think it's definitely worth it to remove it.
r? @kinnison
cc @ollie27
