Remove unused `#[link_name = "m"]` attributes
These were perhaps supposed to be `#[link(name = "m")]` but linking libm should be handled by the libc crate anyway.
They should have triggered a compile error: #47725
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #67450 (Allow for setting a ThinLTO import limit during bootstrap)
- #67595 (Suggest adding a lifetime constraint for opaque type)
- #67636 (allow rustfmt key in [build] section)
- #67736 (Less-than is asymmetric, not antisymmetric)
- #67762 (Add missing links for insecure_time)
- #67783 (Warn for bindings named same as variants when matching against a borrow)
- #67796 (Ensure that we process projections during MIR inlining)
- #67807 (Use drop instead of the toilet closure `|_| ()`)
- #67816 (Clean up err codes)
- #67825 (Minor: change take() docs grammar to match other docs)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Document safety of Path casting
I would personally feel more comfortable making the relevant (internal anyway) types repr(transparent) and then documenting that we can make these casts because of that, but I believe this is a more minimal PR, so posting it first.
Resolves#45910.
Remove redundant link texts
Most of these links are followed by a parenthesized expression. I think that the redundant link texts were added to prevent interpretation as an inline link. This is unnecessary since the closing square bracket and opening parenthesis are separated by whitespace.
`description` has been documented as soft-deprecated since 1.27.0 (17
months ago). There is no longer any reason to call it or implement it.
This commit:
- adds #[rustc_deprecated(since = "1.41.0")] to Error::description;
- moves description (and cause, which is also deprecated) below the
source and backtrace methods in the Error trait;
- reduces documentation of description and cause to take up much less
vertical real estate in rustdocs, while preserving the example that
shows how to render errors without needing to call description;
- removes the description function of all *currently unstable* Error
impls in the standard library;
- marks #[allow(deprecated)] the description function of all *stable*
Error impls in the standard library;
- replaces miscellaneous uses of description in example code and the
compiler.
Fix up Command Debug output when arg0 is specified.
PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66512 added the ability to set argv[0] on
Command. As a side effect, it changed the Debug output to print both the program and
argv[0], which in practice results in stuttery output (`"echo" "echo" "foo"`).
This PR reverts the behaviour to the the old one, so that the command is only printed
once - unless arg0 has been set. In that case it emits `"[command]" "arg0" "arg1" ...`.
std: Implement `LineWriter::write_vectored`
This commit implements the `write_vectored` method of the `LineWriter`
type. First discovered in bytecodealliance/wasmtime#629 the
`write_vectored` method of `Stdout` bottoms out here but only ends up
writing the first buffer due to the default implementation of
`write_vectored`.
Like `BufWriter`, however, `LineWriter` can have a non-default
implementation of `write_vectored` which tries to preserve the
vectored-ness as much as possible. Namely we can have a vectored write
for everything before the newline and everything after the newline if
all the stars align well.
Also like `BufWriter`, though, special care is taken to ensure that
whenever bytes are written we're sure to signal success since that
represents a "commit" of writing bytes.
PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66512 added the ability to set argv[0] on
Command. As a side effect, it changed the Debug output to print both the program and
argv[0], which in practice results in stuttery output ("echo echo foo").
This PR reverts the behaviour to the the old one, so that the command is only printed
once - unless arg0 has been set. In that case it emits "[command] arg0 arg1 ...".
Delete flaky test net::tcp::tests::fast_rebind
This test is unreliable for at least 3 users on two platforms: see #57509 and #51006. It was added 5 years ago in #22015. Do we know whether this is testing something important that would indicate a bug in our implementation, or if it's fine to remove?
r? @sfackler @alexcrichton because this somewhat resembles #59018Closes#57509. Closes#51006.
