Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
This is a rebase of #56440, massaged to solve merge conflicts and make the test suite pass.
Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
Union fields may now never have a type with attached destructor. This for example allows unions to use arbitrary field types only by wrapping them in `ManuallyDrop` (or similar).
The stable rule remains, that union fields must be `Copy`. We use the new rule for the `untagged_union` feature.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55149
Stabilize todo macro
The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59277
This PR needs a FCP to merge.
r? @withoutboats
std: Add a `backtrace` module
This commit adds a `backtrace` module to the standard library, as
designed in [RFC 2504]. The `Backtrace` type is intentionally very
conservative, effectively only allowing capturing it and printing it.
Additionally this commit also adds a `backtrace` method to the `Error`
trait which defaults to returning `None`, as specified in [RFC 2504].
More information about the design here can be found in [RFC 2504] and in
the [tracking issue].
Implementation-wise this is all based on the `backtrace` crate and very
closely mirrors the `backtrace::Backtrace` type on crates.io. Otherwise
it's pretty standard in how it handles everything internally.
[RFC 2504]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2504-fix-error.md
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53487
cc #53487
This commit adds a `backtrace` module to the standard library, as
designed in [RFC 2504]. The `Backtrace` type is intentionally very
conservative, effectively only allowing capturing it and printing it.
Additionally this commit also adds a `backtrace` method to the `Error`
trait which defaults to returning `None`, as specified in [RFC 2504].
More information about the design here can be found in [RFC 2504] and in
the [tracking issue].
Implementation-wise this is all based on the `backtrace` crate and very
closely mirrors the `backtrace::Backtrace` type on crates.io. Otherwise
it's pretty standard in how it handles everything internally.
[RFC 2504]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2504-fix-error.md
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53487
cc #53487
… and add a separately-unstable field to force non-exhaustive matching
(`#[non_exhaustive]` is no implemented yet on enum variants)
so that we have the option to later expose the allocator’s error value.
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/23
This is duplicated in a few locations throughout the sysroot to work
around issues with not exporting a macro in libstd but still wanting it
available to sysroot crates to define blocks. Nowadays though we can
simply depend on the `cfg-if` crate on crates.io, allowing us to use it
from there!
Reexport IntErrorKind in std
Currently `IntErrorKind` can only be found in `core`. @Centril confirmed on Discord that this is unintentional (should I r? him in this situation?).
Should there be a test for this? As far as this *specific* situation goes, I don't think so, I'll risk it and say that there's no way this regresses. However, it might be a good idea to have some tool detect public items in `core` that are not reexported in `std`. Does this belong in tidy, or should that be a separate tool? Is there some rustc-specific *linter*? Unless that's entirely a dumb idea, this should probably get an issue.
Note: My local build hasn't finished yet, but it's well past the point where I would expect problems.
Stabilize Range*::contains.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32311. There's also a bit of rustfmt on range.rs thrown in for good measure (I forgot to turn off format-on-save in VSCode).
Mazdak Farrokhzad