It's very useful. There are some false positives involving integration
tests in `rustc_pattern_analysis` and `rustc_serialize`. There is also a
false positive involving `rustc_driver_impl`'s
`rustc_randomized_layouts` feature. And I removed a `rustc_span` mention
in a doc comment in `rustc_log` because it wasn't integral to the
comment but caused a dev-dependency.
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138084> to buy time to
consider options that avoids breaking downstream usages of cargo on
distributed `rustc-src` artifacts, where such cargo invocations fail due
to inability to inherit `lints` from workspace root manifest's
`workspace.lints` (this is only valid for the source rust-lang/rust
workspace, but not really the distributed `rustc-src` artifacts).
This breakage was reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138304>.
This reverts commit 48caf81484, reversing
changes made to c6662879b2.
Preliminary cleanup of `WitnessPat` hoisting/printing
Follow-up to #128430.
The eventual goal is to remove `print::Pat` entirely, but in the course of working towards that I made so many small improvements that it seems wise to let those be reviewed/merged on their own first.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit, most of which should be pretty simple and straightforward.
r? ``@Nadrieril``
We can replace some tricky iterator-mutation code with a much simpler version
that uses `while let` to shrink a slice.
We also check whether a subpattern would be a wildcard _before_ hoisting it,
which will be very useful when trying to get rid of `print::PatKind` later.
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Marijn Schouten
Nadrieril
dianne
est31
Nicholas Nethercote
许杰友 Jieyou Xu (Joe)
Michael Goulet
Matthias Krüger
Zalathar