This code turns the raw code given by the user into something actually
runnable, e.g. by adding a `main` function if it doesn't already exist.
I also made a couple other items private that didn't need to be
crate-public.
This was used to get the line number of the first line from the current
docstring, which was then used together with an offset within the
docstring. It's simpler to just pass the offset to the visitor and have
it do the math because it's clearer and this calculation only needs to
be done in one place (the Rust doctest visitor).
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions" on nightly
As discussed in [today's t-compiler meeting](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-06/near/443079505), this reverts PR #124099 to fix P-critical beta regressions #125199.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Opening as draft so that ``@wesleywiser`` and ``@apiraino,`` you can tell me whether you wanted:
1. a `beta-accepted` revert of #124099 on nightly (this PR)? That will need to be backported to beta (even though #126093 may be the last of those)
2. a revert of #124099 on beta?
3. all of the above?
I also opened #126102, another draft PR to revert #124099 on beta, should you choose options 2 or 3.
Remove `same-lib-two-locations-no-panic` run-make test
This test doesn't really make any sense anymore, it became broken a long time ago.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
Don't warn on fields in the `unreachable_pub` lint
This PR restrict the `unreachable_pub` lint by not linting on `pub` fields of `pub(restricted)` structs and unions. This is done because that can quickly clutter the code for an uncertain value, in particular since the "real" visibility is defined by the parent (the struct it-self).
This is meant to address one of the last concern of the `unreachable_pub` lint.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
