`use` declarations will be reformatted in #125443. Very rarely, there is
a desire to force a group of `use` declarations together in a way that
auto-formatting will break up. E.g. when you want a single comment to
apply to a group. #126776 dealt with all of these in the codebase,
ensuring that no comments intended for multiple `use` declarations would
end up in the wrong place. But some people were unhappy with it.
This commit uses `#[rustfmt::skip]` to create these custom `use` groups
in an idiomatic way for a few of the cases changed in #126776. This
works because rustfmt treats any `use` item annotated with
`#[rustfmt::skip]` as a barrier and won't reorder other `use` items
around it.
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.
interpret: dyn trait metadata check: equate traits in a proper way
Hopefully fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3541... unfortunately we don't have a testcase.
The first commit is just a refactor without functional change.
r? `@oli-obk`
allow mutable references in const values when they point to no memory
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120450
The second commit is just some drive-by test suite cleanup.
r? `@oli-obk`
Instead we re-use the static's alloc id within the interpreter for its initializer to refer to the `Allocation` that only exists within the interpreter.
Fix async closures in CTFE
First commit renames `is_coroutine_or_closure` into `is_closure_like`, because `is_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closure` seems confusing and long.
Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle `TyKind::CoroutineClosure` the same as closures and coroutines.
The test exercises the change to `ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elem` which is the source of #120946, but not the change to `UsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor`, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert against `TooGeneric` anywhere?).
Fixes#120946
r? oli-obk cc ``@RalfJung``
This also now allows promoteds everywhere to point to 'extern static', because why not?
We still check that constants cannot transitively reach 'extern static' through references.
(We allow it through raw pointers.)
Renamings:
- find -> opt_hir_node
- get -> hir_node
- find_by_def_id -> opt_hir_node_by_def_id
- get_by_def_id -> hir_node_by_def_id
Fix rebase changes using removed methods
Use `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id()` whenever possible in compiler
Fix clippy errors
Fix compiler
Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Vadim Petrochenkov <vadim.petrochenkov@gmail.com>
Add FIXME for `tcx.hir()` returned type about its removal
Simplify with with `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id`
