Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #88375 (Clarify that ManuallyDrop<T> has same layout as T)
- #93755 (Allow comparing `Vec`s with different allocators using `==`)
- #95016 (Docs: make Vec::from_raw_parts documentation less strict)
- #95098 (impl From<&[T; N]> and From<&mut [T; N]> for Vec<T>)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Allow comparing `Vec`s with different allocators using `==`
See https://stackoverflow.com/q/71021633/7884305.
I did not changed the `PartialOrd` impl too because it was not generic already (didn't support `Vec<T> <=> Vec<U> where T: PartialOrd<U>`).
Does it needs tests?
I don't think this will hurt type inference much because the default allocator is usually not inferred (`new()` specifies it directly, and even with other allocators, you pass the allocator to `new_in()` so the compiler usually knows the type).
I think this requires FCP since the impls are already stable.
Clarify that ManuallyDrop<T> has same layout as T
This PR implements the documentation change under discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/302. It should not be approved or merged until the discussion there is resolved.
It's only needed for macro expansion, not as a general element in the
AST. This commit removes it, adds `NtOrTt` for the parser and macro
expansion cases, and renames the variants in `NamedMatch` to better
match the new type.
Fix typo in `String::try_reserve_exact` docs
Copying the pattern from `Vec::try_reserve_exact` and `String::try_reserve`,
it looks like this doc comment is intending to refer to the currently-being-documented
function.
Provide suggestion for missing `>` in a type parameter list
When encountering an inproperly terminated type parameter list, provide
a suggestion to close it after the last non-constraint type parameter
that was successfully parsed.
Fix#94058.
This was so verbose before that it made it hard to see what effect the flag actually had.
Before:
```
Set({test::src/tools/tidy}) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Tidy" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/ui) because it is excluded
Suite(test::src/test/run-pass-valgrind) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::RunPassValgrind" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/mir-opt) because it is excluded
Suite(test::src/test/codegen) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Codegen" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Suite(test::src/test/codegen-units) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::CodegenUnits" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Suite(test::src/test/assembly) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Assembly" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Suite(test::src/test/incremental) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Incremental" -- not in [src/test/ui, src/test/mir-opt/, src/test/debuginfo, src/test/ui-fulldeps]
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/debuginfo) because it is excluded
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/ui-fulldeps) because it is excluded
... about 100 more lines ...
```
After:
```
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/ui) because it is excluded
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/mir-opt) because it is excluded
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/debuginfo) because it is excluded
Skipping Suite(test::src/test/ui-fulldeps) because it is excluded
```
Previously, it would erroneously try to run the doc-tests anyway and give an error:
```
Doc-tests rustdoc
thread 'main' panicked at 'RUSTDOC_LIBDIR was not set', src/bootstrap/bin/rustdoc.rs:15:48
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
error: test failed, to rerun pass '--doc'
```
The problem was two-fold:
- Bootstrap was hard-coding that unit tests should always run with stage1, not stage2, and
- It hard-coded the sysroot layout in stage1, which puts libLLVM.so in `lib/rustlib/` instead of just `lib/`.
Copying the pattern from `Vec::try_reserve_exact` and `String::try_reserve`,
it looks like this doc comment is intending to refer to the currently-being-documented
function.
