Point to let when modifying field of immutable variable
Point at the immutable local variable when trying to modify one of its
fields.
Given a file:
```rust
struct Foo {
pub v: Vec<String>
}
fn main() {
let f = Foo { v: Vec::new() };
f.v.push("cat".to_string());
}
```
present the following output:
```
error: cannot borrow immutable field `f.v` as mutable
--> file.rs:7:13
|
6 | let f = Foo { v: Vec::new() };
| - this should be `mut`
7 | f.v.push("cat".to_string());
| ^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Fix#27593.
Add feature gate for rvalue-static-promotion
Probably needs more tests (which ones?) and there may be other things that need to be done. Also not sure whether the version that introduces the flag is really `1.15.1`.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1414.
Updates #38865.
Library stabilizations for 1.17
Details of the stabilizations are available in the commits. Includes only library stabilizations; there are a couple of compiler stabilizations that should also be done for 1.17.
Will need a beta backport, which I will create after approval.
r? @alexcrichton
travis: Ensure cargo links libcurl statically
We don't want a dynamic dependency in the library that we ship, so link it
statically by configuring curl-sys's build script to not pick up the system
version via pkg-config.
rustbuild: Retry downloads of OpenSSL source
We need this to compile Cargo and we download it at build time, but as like all
other network requests it has a chance of failing. This commit moves the source
of the tarball to a mirror (S3 seems semi-more-reliable most of the time) and
also wraps the download in a retry loop.
cc #40474
Inline functions Ordering::{then, then_with}
@jongiddy noticed bad performance due to the lack of inlining on `then`
and `then_with`. I confirmed that inlining really is the culprit by
creating a custom `then` function and repeating his benchmark on my
machine with and without the `#[inline]` attribute.
The numbers were exactly the same on my machine without the attribute.
With `#[inline]` I got the same performance as I did with manually
inlined implementation.
The problem was reported in #37053.
A few improvements to the `core::hash` top-level docs.
Primarily opened to address the concerns brought up in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40498.
* run rustfmt on code blocks
* use `DefaultHasher` instead of deprecated `SipHasher`
* rename `hash` to `calculate_hash` to prevent confusion with the `hash`
method
std: remove a workaround for privacy limitations
`std:🧵:Thread` implements a non-exported `NewThread` trait to allow for internal-only use of `Thread::new`. Nowadays we have `pub(crate)`, which accomplishes the same thing but much more idiomatically.
Rustdoc handles this correctly (I checked and I didn't see `Thread::new` on the rustdoc entry for `Thread` with this change), and the stage1 `rustc` emits the correct error still (I'm assuming that the stage1 compiler uses my `libstd`?):
```
$ ./build/x86_64-apple-darwin/stage1/bin/rustc test.rs
error: method `new` is private
--> test.rs:4:18
|
4 | let thread = thread::Thread::new(None);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Point out correct turbofish usage on `Foo<Bar<Baz>>`
Whenever we parse a chain of binary operations, as long as the first
operation is `<` and the subsequent operations are either `>` or `<`,
present the following diagnostic help:
use `::<...>` instead of `<...>` if you meant to specify type arguments
This will lead to spurious recommendations on situations like
`2 < 3 < 4` but should be clear from context that the help doesn't apply
in that case.
Fixes#40396.
Corrected very minor documentation detail about Unicode and Japanese
Japanese half-width and full-width romaji characters do have upper and lowercase according Unicode (but other Japanese characters do not). For example,
` assert_eq!('\u{FF21}'.to_lowercase().collect::<String>(),"\u{FF41}");`
r? @steveklabnik
Remove doc about highlighting code in other languages #40301
This doesn't appear to be true any longer, so removing it to avoid confusion. See #40301
Thoughts:
- may be a good idea to remove "Let's discuss the details of these code blocks.", as there's not much being discussed at this point;
- does `text` still work?
r? @steveklabnik
