jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: - [Documentation tests](documentation-tests.md) - [Linking to items by name](linking-to-items-by-name.md) - [Lints](lints.md) <del> - [Passes](passes.md) </del> - [Advanced features](advanced-features.md) - [Unstable features](unstable-features.md) <ins> - [Passes](passes.md) </ins> - [References](references.md)
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: LLVM version: 3.9 ``` <del> ## `-r`/`--input-format`: input format This flag is currently ignored; the idea is that `rustdoc` would support various input formats, and you could specify them via this flag. Rustdoc only supports Rust source code and Markdown input formats. If the file ends in `.md` or `.markdown`, `rustdoc` treats it as a Markdown file. Otherwise, it assumes that the input file is Rust. ## `-w`/`--output-format`: output format This flag is currently ignored; the idea is that `rustdoc` would support various output formats, and you could specify them via this flag. Rustdoc only supports HTML output, and so this flag is redundant today. </del> ## `-o`/`--output`: output path Using this flag looks like this:
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: as the `.rs` file. `--crate-name` lets you override this assumption with whatever name you choose. <ins> ## `--document-private-items`: Show items that are not public Using this flag looks like this: ```bash $ rustdoc src/lib.rs --document-private-items ``` By default, `rustdoc` only documents items that are publicly reachable. ```rust pub fn public() {} // this item is public and will documented mod private { // this item is private and will not be documented pub fn unreachable() {} // this item is public, but unreachable, so it will not be documented } ``` `--document-private-items` documents all items, even if they're not public. </ins> ## `-L`/`--library-path`: where to look for dependencies Using this flag looks like this:
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: The arguments to this flag are the same as those for the `-C` flag on rustc. Run `rustc -C help` to get the full list. <del> ## `--passes`: add more rustdoc passes Using this flag looks like this: ```bash $ rustdoc --passes list $ rustdoc src/lib.rs --passes strip-priv-imports ``` An argument of "list" will print a list of possible "rustdoc passes", and other arguments will be the name of which passes to run in addition to the defaults. For more details on passes, see [the chapter on them](passes.md). See also `--no-defaults`. ## `--no-defaults`: don't run default passes Using this flag looks like this: ```bash $ rustdoc src/lib.rs --no-defaults ``` By default, `rustdoc` will run several passes over your code. This removes those defaults, allowing you to use `--passes` to specify exactly which passes you want. For more details on passes, see [the chapter on them](passes.md). See also `--passes`. </del> ## `--test`: run code examples as tests Using this flag looks like this:
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: command line options from it. These options are one per line; a blank line indicates an empty option. The file can use Unix or Windows style line endings, and must be encoded as UTF-8. <ins> ## `--passes`: add more rustdoc passes This flag is **deprecated**. For more details on passes, see [the chapter on them](passes.md). ## `--no-defaults`: don't run default passes This flag is **deprecated**. For more details on passes, see [the chapter on them](passes.md). ## `-r`/`--input-format`: input format This flag is **deprecated** and **has no effect**. Rustdoc only supports Rust source code and Markdown input formats. If the file ends in `.md` or `.markdown`, `rustdoc` treats it as a Markdown file. Otherwise, it assumes that the input file is Rust. </ins>
Code change:
From So not sure which way seems better? What do you think ?
Yeah I think we should document the new stuff and remove the docs for the deprecated stuff (perhaps mention that these deprecated features exist, but not document them in depth)
I've felt confused about this before: Why do we even let people customize which passes are run? That seems like unnecessary entanglement with rustdoc internals.
Also, there doesn't seem to be a flag. Are you thinking of ? If so, rustdoc says that's deprecated. Edit: It looks like is deprecated as well.
What is "the new stuff"? Do you mean things like ? Other than my confusion about that, I agree with Manish here. I think we should mention the deprecated features, but not document them extensively since they shouldn't be used anyway. If we extensively document deprecated features, we are wasting our time and our readers' time.
Yes. I do think the pass infra should stay mostly internal, with specific options being exposed via specific attributes. How we construct it internally should not be something the user should ever have to care about.

Related discussion:
text: Public items that are not documented can be seen with the built-in `missing_docs` lint. Private items that are not documented can be seen with Clippy's `missing_docs_in_private_items` lint. <ins> ## `-w`/`--output-format`: output format When using [`--show-coverage`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustdoc/unstable-features.html#--show-coverage-get-statistics-about-code-documentation-coverage), passing `--output-format json` will display the coverage information in JSON format. For example, here is the JSON for a file with one documented item and one undocumented item: ```rust /// This item has documentation pub fn foo() {} pub fn no_documentation() {} ``` ```json {"no_std.rs":{"total":3,"with_docs":1,"total_examples":3,"with_examples":0}} ``` Note that the third item is the crate root, which in this case is undocumented. When not using `--show-coverage`, `--output-format json` emits documentation in the experimental [JSON format](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2963). `--output-format html` has no effect, and is also accepted on stable toolchains. </ins> ### `--enable-per-target-ignores`: allow `ignore-foo` style filters for doctests Using this flag looks like this:
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: } impl Attribute { <ins> #[inline] </ins> pub fn has_name(&self, name: Symbol) -> bool { match self.kind { AttrKind::Normal(ref item, _) => item.path == name,
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: use rustc_middle::ty::query::Providers; use rustc_middle::ty::TyCtxt; <del> use rustc_ast::{Attribute, LitKind, NestedMetaItem}; </del> <ins> use rustc_ast::{Attribute, Lit, LitKind, NestedMetaItem}; </ins> use rustc_errors::{pluralize, struct_span_err}; use rustc_hir as hir; use rustc_hir::def_id::LocalDefId;
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: self.check_export_name(hir_id, &attr, span, target) } else if self.tcx.sess.check_name(attr, sym::rustc_args_required_const) { self.check_rustc_args_required_const(&attr, span, target, item) <ins> } else if self.tcx.sess.check_name(attr, sym::rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start) { self.check_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range(&attr, span, target) } else if self.tcx.sess.check_name(attr, sym::rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end) { self.check_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range(&attr, span, target) </ins> } else if self.tcx.sess.check_name(attr, sym::allow_internal_unstable) { self.check_allow_internal_unstable(hir_id, &attr, span, target, &attrs) } else if self.tcx.sess.check_name(attr, sym::rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable) {
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: } } <ins> fn check_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range( &self, attr: &Attribute, span: &Span, target: Target, ) -> bool { if target != Target::Struct { self.tcx .sess .struct_span_err(attr.span, "attribute should be applied to a struct") .span_label(*span, "not a struct") .emit(); return false; } let list = match attr.meta_item_list() { None => return false, Some(it) => it, }; if matches!(&list[..], &[NestedMetaItem::Literal(Lit { kind: LitKind::Int(..), .. })]) { true } else { self.tcx .sess .struct_span_err(attr.span, "expected exactly one integer literal argument") .emit(); false } } </ins> /// Checks if `#[rustc_legacy_const_generics]` is applied to a function and has a valid argument. fn check_rustc_legacy_const_generics( &self,
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: <ins> #![feature(rustc_attrs)] #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start(u32::MAX)] //~ ERROR pub struct A(u32); #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(1, 2)] //~ ERROR pub struct B(u8); #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(a = "a")] //~ ERROR pub struct C(i32); #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(1)] //~ ERROR enum E { X = 1, Y = 14, } fn main() { let _ = A(0); let _ = B(0); let _ = C(0); let _ = E::X; } </ins>
Code change:
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
This isn't really a bug, it's just that it has bad diagnostics because it uses , which is a perma-unstable attribute. I would recommend against reporting bugs that need attributes unless they cause unsoundness.
MCVE:
Should I exclude all test programs that have a line starting with ? Thanks.
I don't personally feel comfortable setting a policy that we'll never fix ICEs with attributes, but they are definitely less likely to be bugs than other ICEs. Note that this isn't sufficient to catch programs that have an attribute, you can have arbitrary macros that play with conditional compilation, like . Catching and will probably hit the common cases, though (you may want to also include inner attributes).

Related discussion:
text: <ins> error: expected exactly one integer literal argument --> $DIR/invalid_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range.rs:3:1 | LL | #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start(u32::MAX)] | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error: expected exactly one integer literal argument --> $DIR/invalid_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range.rs:6:1 | LL | #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(1, 2)] | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error: expected exactly one integer literal argument --> $DIR/invalid_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range.rs:9:1 | LL | #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(a = "a")] | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error: attribute should be applied to a struct --> $DIR/invalid_rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range.rs:12:1 | LL |   #[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end(1)] |   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LL | / enum E { LL | |     X = 1, LL | |     Y = 14, LL | | } | |_- not a struct error: aborting due to 4 previous errors </ins>
Code change:
Interesingly, and shockingly If you remove and , this doesn't panic. <details<summaryWhats up with the diff? </summaryThe assetion format is differnt to usual as I've patch rustc with to make it readable, but this can also be repoduced with the latest nightly </details modify labels: +A-rustdoc-json +T-rustdoc
MCVE: One has while the other has - I bet one is going through HIR and the other is going through metadata, that could explain why the generic parameter matters.
I have a similar MCVE generated from , but the only item that differs in the assertion is the visibility: The left has a visibility of , and the right has a visibility of . A similar MCVE, with as a parameter, has as an input for the right side, but not for the left (and the / visibility issue):

Related discussion:
text: cx.generated_synthetics.insert((ty, trait_def_id)); <ins> let hir_imp = impl_def_id.as_local() .map(|local| cx.tcx.hir().expect_item(local)) .and_then(|item| if let hir::ItemKind::Impl(i) = &item.kind { Some(i) } else { None }); let items = match hir_imp { Some(imp) => imp .items .iter() .map(|ii| cx.tcx.hir().impl_item(ii.id).clean(cx)) .collect::<Vec<_>>(), None => cx.tcx .associated_items(impl_def_id) .in_definition_order() .map(|x| x.clean(cx)) .collect::<Vec<_>>(), }; </ins> impls.push(Item { name: None, attrs: Default::default(),