Re-export some iterators from `core` in `std`
These iterators seem to have been forgotten to be re-exported from `std` (through `alloc`)
These are stable:
`core::slice::{SplitInclusive, SplitInclusiveMut}`
This one is still unstable:
`core::slice::EscapeAscii` (cc #77174)
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #90507 (Suggest `extern crate alloc` when using undeclared module `alloc`)
- #90530 (Simplify js tester a bit)
- #90533 (Add note about x86 instruction prefixes in asm! to unstable book)
- #90537 (Update aarch64 `target_feature` list for LLVM 12.)
- #90544 (Demote metadata load warning to "info".)
- #90554 (Clean up some `-Z unstable-options` in tests.)
- #90556 (Add more text and examples to `carrying_{add|mul}`)
- #90563 (rustbot allow labels)
- #90571 (Fix missing bottom border for headings in sidebar)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustbot allow labels
`relnotes` was inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90521 , and by the various `must_use` PRs; in all of those cases, the submitter of the PR could know that `relnotes` applied, but couldn't apply it themselves.
For `needs-fcp`, I think people should be able to help triage by observing that a change needs an FCP before we can apply it.
Clean up some `-Z unstable-options` in tests.
Several of these tests were for features that have been stabilized, or otherwise don't need `-Z unstable-options`.
Demote metadata load warning to "info".
There is a warn log message for whenever the crate loader fails to load metadata from a candidate file. I think this warning is too aggressive, as there are several situations where metadata information might not be found in a candidate file, which is normal. Also, this warning is somewhat confusing, and non-actionable in most cases for a user (most users will not know what it means).
If the crate loader ultimately does not find a valid crate, then an error will be reported (and hopefully #88368 will improve that error message).
If a rustc developer wants to debug a loader problem, they can still use `RUSTC_LOG=rustc_metadata=debug` and get the details.
There is more discussion of this particular warning at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89795#issuecomment-940798190.
Fixes#90525
Update aarch64 `target_feature` list for LLVM 12.
Many of these feature are now available on all valid LLVM versions.
I've also added a few new ones to the list.
r? `@Amanieu`
Add note about x86 instruction prefixes in asm! to unstable book
Since rustc doesn't do the assembly parsing itself, it is unable to detect when inline assembly ends with an instruction prefix, which doesn't make sense since it would apply to instructions from the compiler. This fixes#82314 by mentioning that x86 instruction prefixes must not be used in inline assembly. AFAICT x86 is the only instruction set with instruction prefixes.
Inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90521 , and by the
various `must_use` PRs; in all of those cases, the submitter of the PR
could know that `relnotes` applied, but couldn't apply it themselves.
update rustc_ast crate descriptions in documentation
I noticed this the other day and figured I'd suggest a refresh. It seems like a relic from the days of `libsyntax` that got missed as things were split out into separate crates, since the current documentation text references elements that were moved into their own respective crates (e.g. `rustc_parse`)
Implement `RefUnwindSafe` for `Rc<T>`
This PR implements `RefUnwindSafe` for `Rc<T>`, where `T: RefUnwindSafe`.
This impl was omitted by an apparent oversight. `Rc<T>` already implements `UnwindSafe`. `Arc<T>` implements both `UnwindSafe` and `RefUnwindSafe`. There is no reason why an `&Rc<T>` is any less unwind safe than a `Rc<T>` or an `&Arc<T>`, so this should be safe to add.
Resolves#45924.
