Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #60287 (Use references for variances_of)
- #60327 (Search for incompatible universes in borrow errors)
- #60330 (Suggest using an inclusive range instead of an exclusive range when the endpoint overflows by 1)
- #60366 (build-gcc: Create missing cc symlink)
- #60369 (Support ZSTs in DispatchFromDyn)
- #60404 (Implement `BorrowMut<str>` for `String`)
- #60417 (Rename hir::ExprKind::Use to ::DropTemps and improve docs.)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Replace the `&'tcx List<Ty<'tcx>>` in `TyKind::Tuple` with `SubstsRef<'tcx>`
Part of the suggested refactoring for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42340. As expected, this is a little messy, because there are many places that the components of tuples are expected to be types, rather than arbitrary kinds. However, it should open up the way for a refactoring of `TyS` itself.
r? @nikomatsakis
Don't stop evaluating due to errors before borrow checking
r? @oli-obk
Fix#60005. Follow up to #59903. Blocked on #53708, fixing the ICE in `src/test/ui/consts/match_ice.rs`.
Properly parse '--extern-private' with name and path
It turns out that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57586 didn't properly parse `--extern-private name=path`.
This PR properly implements the `--extern-private` option. I've added a new `extern-private` option to `compiletest`, which causes an `--extern-private` option to be passed to the compiler with the proper path.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44663
Add discr_index to multi-variant layouts
We remove the assumption that the discriminant is always field 0, in
preparations for layouts like generators where this is not (always) going to be
the case.
Specifically, upvars are going to go before the discriminant. In theory, it's possible to remove _that_ assumption instead and keep the discriminant at field index 0, but one assumption or the other had to go :)
There is one place I know of in the debuginfo code where we'll still need to remove assumptions that the discriminant is the _only_ field. I was planning on doing this along with the upcoming generator change, which will also include tests that exercise the code changing in this PR.
r? @eddyb
cc @oli-obk
cc @cramertj
