id int64 37.9M 1.25B | issue_num int64 15.7k 97.4k | title stringlengths 20 90 | body stringlengths 59 9.59k | comments stringlengths 152 26.7k | labels stringlengths 93 311 | comment_count int64 1 465 | url stringlengths 56 56 | html_url stringlengths 46 46 | comments_url stringlengths 65 65 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,246,842,349 | 97,362 | Tracking Issue for RFC 3216: "Allow using `for<'a>` syntax when declaring closures" | <!--
NOTE: For library features, please use the "Library Tracking Issue" template instead.
Thank you for creating a tracking issue! 📜 Tracking issues are for tracking a
feature from implementation to stabilisation. Make sure to include the relevant
RFC for the feature if it has one. Otherwise provide a short sum... | I'd like to work on implementing this 👀
@rustbot claim<|endoftext|>The implementation section needs to be updated to mention #98705.<|endoftext|>I bumped on this issue and I would like to share some code that maybe someone knowledgeable could comment on whether we are likely to get the features demonstrated or sim... | T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>T-types<|endoftext|>F-closure_lifetime_binder | 13 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/97362 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97362 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/97362/comments |
1,100,848,356 | 92,827 | Tracking Issue for Associated Const Equality | This is a tracking issue for the feature Associated Const Equality brought up in #70256.
The feature gate for the issue is `#![feature(associated_const_equality)]`.
### About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other... | Hello!
Is there a corresponding RFC, or any context whatsoever concerning those changes ?
This is the first occurrence of language syntax change that is not backed by RFC and community feedback
@Centril @oli-obk <|endoftext|>Well, we have https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70256 which indeed has basically no ... | A-associated-items<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-const-generics<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>F-associated_const_equality | 12 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/92827 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92827 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/92827/comments |
1,081,306,965 | 91,971 | Tracking issue for pref_align_of intrinsic | This intrinsic returns the "preferred" alignment of a type, which can be different from the *minimal* alignment exposed via `mem::align_of`. It is not currently exposed through any wrapper method, but can still be accessed by unstable code using the `intrinsics` or `core_intrinsics` features.
See https://github.com/... | Context for labels applied: it sounds like we need a summary of what precisely this means, as distinct from `align_of`, in a way that isn't tied to the LLVM backend. | T-lang<|endoftext|>T-libs-api<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-intrinsics<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 1 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/91971 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91971 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/91971/comments |
1,014,017,064 | 89,460 | Tracking Issue for `deref_into_dyn_supertrait` compatibility lint | ## What is this lint about
We're planning to add the dyn upcasting coercion language feature (see https://github.com/rust-lang/dyn-upcasting-coercion-initiative). Unfortunately this new coercion rule will take priority over certain other coercion rules, which will mean some behavior change. See #89190 for initial bug ... | Could we get a more detailed summary of the case this lint is addressing? dyn upcasting / coercion seems to have made a lot of progress, but this aspect of it doesn't seem to have gotten much discussion that I recall.<|endoftext|>@joshtriplett Sure.
It is known that from user's perspective, coercions has "prioritie... | A-lint<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>C-future-compatibility<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 5 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/89460 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89460 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/89460/comments |
927,632,656 | 86,555 | Tracking Issue for RFC 2528: type-changing struct update syntax | This is a tracking issue for RFC 2528 (rust-lang/rfcs#2528), type-changing struct update syntax.
The feature gate for the issue will be `#![feature(type_changing_struct_update)]`.
There is a dedicated Zulip stream: [`#project-type-changing-struct-update`](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/293397-proj... | It looks like this has been implemented; are there any further known issues or blockers with it?<|endoftext|>I'm eagerly awaiting stabilisation of this feature! Is there anything that still needs to be done?<|endoftext|>> It looks like this has been implemented; are there any further known issues or blockers with it?
... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-type-changing-struct-update<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 5 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/86555 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86555 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/86555/comments |
849,330,204 | 83,788 | Tracking issue for the unstable "wasm" ABI | This issue is intended to track the stabilization of the `"wasm"` ABI added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83763. This new ABI is notably different from the "C" ABI where the "C" ABI's purpose is to match whatever the C ABI for the platform is (in this case whatever clang does). The "wasm" ABI, however, is i... | For folks wanting to give this a try, is there an experimental branch of `wasm-bindgen` that uses this "wasm" ABI?<|endoftext|>There is not a branch at this time, no.<|endoftext|>What is the current state of this? Is there wasm-bindgen support or tooling support for this? Is anything using this?
cc @alexcrichton<|en... | A-ffi<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>O-wasm<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-abi | 26 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/83788 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83788 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/83788/comments |
777,464,477 | 80,619 | Tracking Issue for infallible promotion | <!--
Thank you for creating a tracking issue! 📜 Tracking issues are for tracking a
feature from implementation to stabilisation. Make sure to include the relevant
RFC for the feature if it has one. Otherwise provide a short summary of the
feature and link any relevant PRs or issues, and remove any sections that ar... | In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80243 we learned that there is at least some code (e.g. https://github.com/rodrimati1992/abi_stable_crates/issues/46) that relies in non-trivial ways on `const fn` calls being promoted in a `const`/`static` initializer. We need to figure out how to move forward with such code. ... | T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-const-eval<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 11 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/80619 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80619 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/80619/comments |
687,493,937 | 76,001 | Tracking Issue for inline const expressions and patterns (RFC 2920) | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Inline `const` expressions and patterns" (rust-lang/rfcs#2920).
The feature gate for the issue is `#![feature(inline_const)]`.
### About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also uses as hubs connecting to other... | With regard to the lint, is there any semantic difference between the two? Intuitively I would expect them to behave identically (static lifetimes).<|endoftext|>They behave identically. The point of the lint is to have a single "idiomatic" form.
> Naming: "inline const", "const block", or "anonymous const"?
The i... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-const-eval<|endoftext|>F-inline_const<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 74 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/76001 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76001 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/76001/comments |
674,921,649 | 75,251 | Tracking Issue for const MaybeUninit::as(_mut)_ptr (feature: const_maybe_uninit_as_ptr) | <!--
Thank you for creating a tracking issue! 📜 Tracking issues are for tracking a
feature from implementation to stabilisation. Make sure to include the relevant
RFC for the feature if it has one. Otherwise provide a short summary of the
feature and link any relevant PRs or issues, and remove any sections that ar... | There doesn't appear to be any blockers for the non-mut version, unless I'm missing something?<|endoftext|>Visiting for T-compiler backlog bonanza. This seems likely to be ready to stabilize, but since I'm not certain, I'm tagging with "needs summary"
Also, we think the question of whether to stabilize these methods... | T-libs-api<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>disposition-merge<|endoftext|>finished-final-comment-period<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 11 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/75251 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75251 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/75251/comments |
637,330,037 | 73,255 | Tracking issue for `#![feature(const_precise_live_drops)]` | Feature gate for the more precise version of const-checking in #71824.
(Potential) blockers:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91009 | Cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval (which I think never happened for this feature or the PR)<|endoftext|>Is there particular reason why this was moved to be a feature?
It is more or less bug fix to inaccurate drop detection.
So shouldn't it be already stable?
This would make it easier to create builders with generic parame... | A-destructors<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-const-eval<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 50 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/73255 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73255 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/73255/comments |
606,453,799 | 71,520 | Use lld by default on x64 msvc windows | This is a metabug, constraining the unbound scope of #39915.
# What is lld
[A linker that's part of the llvm project](https://lld.llvm.org/index.html), which is desirable for two reasons:
* it's very friendly to cross compilation (hence its emphasis for embedded targets)
* it's very fast (often runs in half the... | >(TODO: how is it accessed? -C link-flavor?)
`-C linker=lld` (but `-C linker-flavor=lld` should also work).<|endoftext|>This ought to be a bit more straightforward than using lld with gcc since with MSVC you do conventionally invoke the linker directly, and lld has an [`lld-link.exe` binary](https://lld.llvm.org/win... | A-linkage<|endoftext|>metabug<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 29 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/71520 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71520 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/71520/comments |
587,887,630 | 70,401 | Tracking Issue for `-Z src-hash-algorithm` | This is the tracking issue for the unstable option `-Z src-hash-algorithm`
### Steps
- [x] Implementation PR #69718
- [ ] Adjust documentation
- [ ] Stabilization PR
### Unresolved Questions
- Should we have a separate option in the target specification to specify the preferred hash algorithm, or continue to... | #73526 has been merged, updating LLVM to 11 and making it possible to support SHA256 as well. I guess for now one still has to give compatibility for older LLVMs though, so one maybe has to place a few cfg's here and there.<|endoftext|>Are there documentation changes needed for this? I'd be happy to help!<|endoftext|>☝... | A-debuginfo<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-cli | 5 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/70401 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70401 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/70401/comments |
574,486,204 | 69,664 | Tracking Issue for the `avr-interrupt`/`avr-non-blocking-interrupt` calling convention/ABI | <!--
Thank you for creating a tracking issue! 📜 Tracking issues are for tracking a
feature from implementation to stabilisation. Make sure to include the relevant
RFC for the feature if it has one. Otherwise provide a short summary of the
feature and link any relevant PRs or issues, and remove any sections that ar... | Raised to appease `tidy` in #69478.<|endoftext|>In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40180 we mentioned wanting a (single) RFC for target-specific interrupt calling conventions, and that work is in progress in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246; you may want to coordinate with that work in progress. | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>WG-embedded<|endoftext|>O-AVR<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 2 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/69664 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69664 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/69664/comments |
551,594,354 | 68,318 | Tracking issue for negative impls | Generalized negative impls were introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/68004. They were split out from "opt-in builtin traits" (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13231).
## Work in progress
This issue was added in advance of #68004 landed so that I could reference it from within the code. It... | Odd possibly off topic question about this. The following compiles:
```
#![feature(negative_impls)]
pub struct Test{
}
impl !Drop for Test {}
fn foo(){
drop(Test{})
}
```
Should it? <|endoftext|>> Odd possibly off topic question about this. The following compiles:
>
> ```
> #![feature(negati... | A-traits<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-negative_impls<|endoftext|>S-tracking-impl-incomplete<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 17 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/68318 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/68318 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/68318/comments |
493,756,545 | 64,490 | Tracking issue for RFC 2582, `&raw [mut | const] $place` (raw_ref_op) | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "an operator to take a raw reference" (rust-lang/rfcs#2582), feature(raw_ref_op).
**Steps:**
- [ ] Implement the RFC (see [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490#issuecomment-531579111) for a detailed checklist)
- [ ] Adjust documentation ([see instructi... | I'll try to get a PR open for this soon.<|endoftext|>I would suggest splitting the implementation work up into phases to make each part thoroughly reviewed and tested. However, think of this list as a bunch of tasks that need to be done at some point.
1. [x] Implement `&raw [mut | const] $expr` in the parser and AST... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>requires-nightly<|endoftext|>F-raw_ref_op<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 77 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490/comments |
486,862,701 | 63,997 | Tracking issue for const fn pointers | Sub-tracking issue for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57563.
This tracks `const fn` types and calling `fn` types in `const fn`.
---
From the RFC (https://github.com/oli-obk/rfcs/blob/const_generic_const_fn_bounds/text/0000-const-generic-const-fn-bounds.md#const-function-pointers):
## `const` func... | I think that, at the very least, this should work:
```rust
const fn foo() {}
const FOO: const fn() = foo;
const fn bar() { FOO() }
const fn baz(x: const fn()) { x() }
const fn bazz() { baz(FOO) }
```
For this to work:
* `const` must be part of `fn` types (just like `unsafe`, the `extern "ABI"`, etc.)
* ... | T-lang<|endoftext|>A-const-fn<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 23 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63997 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63997 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63997/comments |
473,762,264 | 63,084 | Tracking issue for `const fn` `type_name` | This is a tracking issue for making and stabilizing `type_name` as `const fn`. It is not clear whether this is sound. Needs some T-lang discussion probably, too.
Steps needed:
* [x] Implementation (essentially add `const` and `#[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_type_name")` to the function and add tests show... | > This function can change its output between rustc compilations
Can the output change between compiling a library crate, and a binary crate using that library? Or only when switching rustc versions?<|endoftext|>> Can the output change between compiling a library crate, and a binary crate using that library?
No, ... | T-lang<|endoftext|>T-libs-api<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>A-const-fn<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>requires-nightly<|endoftext|>Libs-Tracked<|endoftext|>Libs-Small<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 21 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63084 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63084 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63084/comments |
473,431,185 | 63,012 | Tracking issue for -Z binary-dep-depinfo | This is a tracking issue for `-Z binary-dep-depinfo` added in #61727.
The cargo side is implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7137.
Blockers:
- [ ] Canonicalized paths on Windows. The dep-info file includes a mix of dos-style and extended-length (`\\?\`) paths, and I think we want to use only on... | In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/68298 we fixed binary dep-depinfo to be less eager to emit dependencies on dylib/rlib files when emitting rlibs and rmeta files, as we only need rmeta input in that case.
It was also noted that we currently do not correctly emit plugin dependencies (I'm not entirely sure of ... | T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>requires-nightly<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-cli | 18 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63012 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63012 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/63012/comments |
462,983,150 | 62,290 | Tracking issue for `#![feature(async_closure)]` (RFC 2394) | This is a tracking issue for `#![feature(async_closure)]` (rust-lang/rfcs#2394).
The feature gate provides the `async |...| expr` closure syntax.
**As with all tracking issues for the language, please file anything unrelated to implementation history, that is: bugs and design questions, as separate issues as oppose... | Hi, what's the next step for this issue?<|endoftext|>@Centril am bumping into this one quite often in beta... from an ergonomics point of view it would be great to get this stable if there's no outstanding concerns / issues... - is this something we might consider putting 'on-deck', or does it need more settlement time... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>A-closures<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-async-await<|endoftext|>AsyncAwait-Triaged<|endoftext|>F-async_closures<|endoftext|>requires-nightly<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>WG-async | 28 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/62290 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62290 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/62290/comments |
408,461,314 | 58,329 | Tracking issue for #[ffi_pure] | Annotates an extern C function with C [`pure`](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes) attribute. | This corresponds to the `readonly` LLVM attribute.<|endoftext|>Is this fully implemented and ready for potential stabilization, or is there any blocker? | A-ffi<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 2 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/58329 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58329 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/58329/comments |
408,461,263 | 58,328 | Tracking issue for #[ffi_const] | Annotates an extern C function with C [`const`](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes) attribute.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/unstable-book/language-features/ffi-const.html | This corresponds to the LLVM `readnone` attribute.<|endoftext|>Is this fully implemented and ready for potential stabilization, or is there any blocker? | A-ffi<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 2 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/58328 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58328 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/58328/comments |
376,960,106 | 55,628 | Tracking issue for `trait alias` implementation (RFC 1733) | This is the tracking issue for **implementing** (*not* discussing the design) RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1733. It is a subissue of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41517.
## Current status
Once #55101 lands, many aspects of trait aliases will be implemented. However, some known limitations... | Good summary. Thanks for writing this up.<|endoftext|>Have we considered blocking stabilization on lazy normalization?
That is, I'm worried that these are equivalent problems:
```rust
trait Foo<X> {}
type Bar<X: ExtraBound> = dyn Foo<X>;
fn bad<X>(_: &Bar<X>) {}
trait Foo2<X: ExtraBound> = Foo<X>;
fn bad2<X>... | A-traits<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>T-types<|endoftext|>S-types-deferred | 4 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/55628 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55628 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/55628/comments |
365,574,844 | 54,727 | Tracking issue for procedural macros and "hygiene 2.0" | This is intended to be a tracking issue for enabling procedural macros to have "more hygiene" than the copy/paste hygiene they have today. This is a very vague tracking issue and there's a *very long* and storied history to this. The intention here though is to create a fresh tracking issue to collect the current state... | To give some background, `feature(proc_macro_hygiene)` tracked by this issue was merged from multiple features (`proc_macro_mod`, `proc_macro_expr`, `proc_macro_non_items`, `proc_macro_gen`) in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52121.
So, it's pretty heterogeneous and is not even entirely about hygiene.<|endoft... | A-macros<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-proc-macros<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 44 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54727 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54727 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54727/comments |
365,570,145 | 54,724 | Tracking issue for `Span::def_site()` | This is a tracking issue for the `Span::def_site()` API. The feature for this is `proc_maro_def_site`. The `def_site` span primarily relates to hygiene today in that it's *not* copy-paste hygiene.
This is likely blocked on larger hygiene reform and more thorny Macros 2.0 issues. I'm not personally clear on what the ... | This is likely highly related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54727 as well<|endoftext|>Hygiene serialization was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72121. This ensures that items with def-site hygiene are not visible from another crate.<|endoftext|>What's this blocked on?<|endoftext|>Thi... | E-needs-test<|endoftext|>A-macros<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-libs-api<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>A-macros-2.0<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-proc-macros<|endoftext|>Libs-Tracked<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 7 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54724 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54724 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54724/comments |
365,568,479 | 54,722 | Tracking issue for the `quote!` macro in `proc_macro` | I'm splitting this off https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38356 to track the `quote!` macro specifically contained in `proc_macro`. This macro has different syntax than the [`quote` crate](https://crates.io/crates/quote) on crates.io but I believe similar functionality. At this time it's not clear (to me at least... | Ah, and this is also tracking the `proc_macro_quote` feature.<|endoftext|>We need to avoid `.clone()`-ing the variables interpolated by `quote!`, we should have `&T -> TokenStream` (or, better, an append taking `&T, &mut TokenStream`, like the `quote` crate).
**EDIT**: thinking more about it, I think we should suppo... | A-macros<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-libs-api<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>Libs-Tracked<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 27 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54722 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54722 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54722/comments |
362,941,542 | 54,503 | Tracking issue for RFC 2383, "Lint Reasons RFC" | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Lint Reasons RFC" (rust-lang/rfcs#2383).
**Steps:**
- [x] Implement the RFC (cc @rust-lang/compiler -- can anyone write up mentoring instructions?)
- [x] Implement `reason =` #54683
- [x] Implement `#[expect(lint)]` -- see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/8554... | I started looking at this tonight. (Briefly; I regret that my time is limited.)
The example output in the RFC puts a `reason:` line immediately below the top-level `error:` line, but from a consilience-with-the-existing-implementation perspective, I'm inclined to think it would make more sense to use an ordinary `no... | A-lint<|endoftext|>B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>I-lang-nominated<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>F-lint_reasons | 54 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54503 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54503 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54503/comments |
359,965,614 | 54,192 | Tracking issue for -Z emit-stack-sizes | This is an *experimental* feature (i.e. there's no RFC for it) [approved] by the compiler team and added in #51946. It's available in `nightly-2018-09-27` and newer nightly toolchains.
[approved]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51946#issuecomment-411042650
Documentation can be found in [the unstable book]... | The flag implemented in #51946 is called `emit-stack-sizes`. This issue is "Tracking issue for -Z emit-stack-sections." Typo?<|endoftext|>@cramertj yes, thanks! It has been fixed.<|endoftext|>Just curious, is there anything specific needed to eventually move this to stable? It seems like the feature is relatively simpl... | A-LLVM<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>WG-embedded<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-cli | 5 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54192 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54192 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/54192/comments |
347,313,841 | 53,020 | Tracking issue for comparing raw pointers in constants | Comparing raw pointers in constants is forbidden (hard error) in const contexts.
The `const_compare_raw_pointers` feature gate enables the `guaranteed_eq` and `guaranteed_ne` methods on raw pointers. The root problem with pointer comparisons at compile time is that in many cases we can't know for sure whether two poi... | I either forgot this exists or was never aware.^^ But it is certainly scary... pointer equality is a really complicated subject.
But also, so far the feature flag doesn't actually let you do anything, does it? `binary_ptr_op` still always errors in the CTFE machine, and [even unleashed Miri cannot do pointer compar... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>A-const-fn<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-const-eval<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 10 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/53020 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53020 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/53020/comments |
343,797,565 | 52,652 | Abort instead of unwinding past FFI functions | ## More updated description (2021-03-11)
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76570 having landed, Rust now aborts when a panic leaves an `extern "C"` function, so the original soundness issue is fixed. However, there is an attribute to opt-out of this behavior, `#[unwind(allowed)]`. Using this attribute is c... | CC @alexcrichton, @nikomatsakis <|endoftext|>cc me<|endoftext|>cc @diwic
I think @SimonSapin your description is accurate. The [backport to stable](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48445) and [backport to beta](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48445) were both minor patches, and the main one to nightly ... | A-ffi<|endoftext|>P-high<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>relnotes<|endoftext|>I-unsound<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>WG-project-ffi-unwind | 61 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/52652 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52652 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/52652/comments |
331,834,168 | 51,528 | Diagnostics Revamp Roadmap | The current diagnostics APIs are very unergonomic and can result in various verbose, repetitive and annoying code snippets.
cc @estebank
* [ ] Ensure that diagnostics have been emitted at compile-time (must-use and consuming `emit` method
* [ ] Improve/expand `--teach` API
* Applicable to user code -> show... | Just when I added support for the current API in rustdoc... 😢 <|endoftext|>Just think about how much better things will be!<|endoftext|>I think the way to introduce next generation systems like `chalk` for trait-sys and `polonius` for borrowck is a great model of upgrading: create a independent crate then port into ru... | A-diagnostics<|endoftext|>T-compiler<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-impl-incomplete<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 11 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/51528 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51528 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/51528/comments |
326,744,336 | 51,085 | Tracking issue for RFC 1872: `exhaustive_patterns` feature | This tracks the `exhaustive_patterns` feature which allows uninhabited variant to be omitted
(bug report: #12609; relevant RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#1872).
```rust
fn safe_unwrap<T>(x: Result<T, !>) -> T {
match x {
Ok(y) => y,
}
}
```
- [x] Implementation (separated out from `never_type` in #47... | The lack of this feature has unintuitive consequences (e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55123). I haven't seen any problems arising from it either.
cc @rust-lang/lang: could this be put forward for stabilisation?<|endoftext|>@varkor I am mildly reluctant until we have agreed upon the story around ["neve... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-patterns<|endoftext|>A-exhaustiveness-checking<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>F-exhaustive_patterns | 21 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085/comments |
297,168,206 | 48,214 | Tracking issue for RFC #2056: Allow trivial constraints to appear in where clauses | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Allow trivial constraints to appear in where clauses " (rust-lang/rfcs#2056).
**Steps:**
- [x] Implement the RFC – https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48557
- [ ] As noted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48214#issuecomment-396038764, Chalk would solve a few ... | I'm working on this.<|endoftext|>@matthewjasper ok. I've not thought hard about what it will take to support this. I had thought about doing it after making some more progress on general trait refactoring, but if it can be easily supported today seems fine.<|endoftext|>Oh, I meant to add, please ping me on IRC/gitter w... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-impl-incomplete<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 28 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48214 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48214 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48214/comments |
295,232,972 | 48,055 | Tracking issue for RFC #1909: Unsized Rvalues | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Unsized Rvalues " (rust-lang/rfcs#1909).
**Steps:**
- [ ] Implement the RFC (cc @rust-lang/compiler -- can anyone write up mentoring instructions?)
- [ ] Adjust documentation ([see instructions on forge][doc-guide])
- [ ] Stabilization PR ([see instructions on forge][stabil... | > How do we handle truely-unsized DSTs when we get them?
@aturon: Are you referring to `extern type`?<|endoftext|>@Aaron1011 that was copied straight from the RFC. But yes, I presume that's what it's referring to.<|endoftext|>Why would unsized temporaries ever be necessary? The only way it would make sense to pass t... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-unsized_locals<|endoftext|>F-unsized_fn_params<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 58 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48055 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48055 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48055/comments |
295,231,581 | 48,054 | Tracking issue for RFC #2145: Type privacy and private-in-public lints | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Type privacy and private-in-public lints " (rust-lang/rfcs#2145).
**Steps:**
- [ ] Implement the RFC (cc @petrochenkov )
- [ ] Adjust documentation ([see instructions on forge][doc-guide])
- [ ] Stabilization PR ([see instructions on forge][stabilization-guide])
[stabili... | @rustbot claim<|endoftext|>@petrochenkov: Oops - I didn't mean for that to un-assign you.
Is there a way to prevent these lints from becoming insta-stable? Would it make sense to put them behind a feature gate?<|endoftext|>Perhaps we could only fire the lints if an unstable compiler flag (maybe `-Z type-privacy-lint... | A-lint<|endoftext|>A-visibility<|endoftext|>B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 10 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054/comments |
260,766,278 | 44,874 | Tracking issue for `arbitrary_self_types` | Tracking issue for `#![feature(arbitrary_self_types)]`.
This needs an RFC before stabilization, and also requires the following issues to be handled:
- [ ] figure out the object safety situation
- [ ] figure out the handling of inference variables behind raw pointers
- [ ] decide whether we want safe virtual ra... | Why would you need this?
Why wouldn't you write an impl like this:
```
impl MyStuff for Rc<()> {
fn do_async_task(self) {
// ...
}
}
```
I'd rather define the trait different. Maybe like this:
```
trait MyStuff: Rc {
fn do_async_task(self);
}
```
In this case, Rc would be a trait ty... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-arbitrary_self_types<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>T-types<|endoftext|>S-types-deferred | 118 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874/comments |
246,606,816 | 43,561 | Tracking issue for tweaks to object safety (RFC 2027) | This is the tracking issue for RFC 2027, tweaks to object safety (rust-lang/rfcs#2027)
* [x] Implement (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57545)
* [ ] Document
* [ ] Stabilize | If anyone can mentor I'd be excited to try to implement this.
From my naive perspective, it seems like what we need to do is stop checking object safety at certain points (possibly determining if a type is well formed?) and start checking it at other points (checking if the object type implements its corresponding t... | A-traits<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-object_safe_for_dispatch<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 22 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/43561 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43561 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/43561/comments |
245,280,784 | 43,467 | Tracking issue for RFC 1861: Extern types | This is a tracking issue for [RFC 1861 "Extern types"](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1861-extern-types.md).
**Steps:**
- [x] Implement the RFC (#44295)
- [ ] Adjust documentation ([see instructions on forge][doc-guide])
- [ ] Stabilization PR ([see instructions on forge][stabilization-guide... | This is not explicitly mentioned in the RFC, but I'm assuming different instances of `extern type` are actually different types? Meaning this would be illegal:
```rust
extern {
type A;
type B;
}
fn convert_ref(r: &A) -> &B { r }
```<|endoftext|>@jethrogb That's certainly the intention, yes.<|endoftext|... | A-ffi<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-extern_types<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 232 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/43467 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43467 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/43467/comments |
238,302,145 | 42,877 | Tracking issue for unsized tuple coercion | This is a part of #18469. This is currently feature-gated behind `#![feature(unsized_tuple_coercion)]` to avoid insta-stability.
Related issues/PRs: #18469, #32702, #34451, #37685, #42527
This is needed for unsizing the last field in a tuple:
```rust
#![feature(unsized_tuple_coercion)]
fn main() {
let _:... | Triage: no changes<|endoftext|>T-lang discussed this in a backlog bonanza meeting today, and noted several concerns that should be addressed prior to moving forward:
* Is there active usage/desire for this feature?
* Tuple destructuring and/or combining may conflict with particular decisions made here (for a subset... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 9 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/42877 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42877 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/42877/comments |
234,399,067 | 42,524 | Tracking issue for `-Z profile` | This is intended to be a tracking issue for the profiling feature, built on the gcov-style support in LLVM first added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/38608 and later rebased in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42433. | Triage: not aware of any major move to stabilize this.<|endoftext|>Is it expected that this doesn't work with --release?<|endoftext|>Is there a way to change the path that the tests output to? I want to use this on some code that is cross compiled and needs to run on a device that only has a few writable paths. I'm cur... | T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-cli | 3 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/42524 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42524 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/42524/comments |
223,972,618 | 41,517 | Tracking issue for trait aliases | This is a tracking issue for trait aliases (rust-lang/rfcs#1733).
TODO:
- [x] Implement: [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55628)
- [x] #56485 — Bringing a trait alias into scope doesn't allow calling methods from its component traits (done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59166)... | I think #24010 (allowing aliases to set associated types) should be mentioned here.<|endoftext|>I'd like to take a crack at this (starting with parsing).<|endoftext|>I read the RFC and I saw a call out to `Service`, but I am not sure if the RFC actually solves the `Service` problem.
Specifically, the "alias" needs t... | A-traits<|endoftext|>B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-trait_alias<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 111 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/41517 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41517 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/41517/comments |
211,161,812 | 40,180 | Tracking issue for the `x86-interrupt` calling convention | ## Overview
Tracking issue for the `x86-interrupt` calling convention, which was added in PR #39832. The feature gate name is `abi_x86_interrupt`. This feature will not be considered for stabilization without an RFC.
The `x86-interrupt` calling convention can be used for defining interrupt handlers on 32-bit and ... | If we're going to have an x86-interrupt abi, would it also make sense to have an x86-syscall? Or x86-sysenter?<|endoftext|>([D30049](https://reviews.llvm.org/D30049) was merged to LLVM trunk on the 3rd of April, for the record.)<|endoftext|>@kyrias Thanks for the hint, I updated the issue text. I'll try to create a ba... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 36 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/40180 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40180 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/40180/comments |
206,594,148 | 39,699 | Tracking issue for sanitizer support | Currently we have:
- A rustc flag, `-Z sanitizer`, to sanitize rlibs (it adds an extra LLVM pass/attribute) and executables (it links to the sanitizer runtime). Added in #38699.
- An attribute `#[no_sanitize]` to disable sanitization on specific functions. Also lints if those functions are marked as requesting in... | Just for record. Currently only 4 sanitizers are enabled (asan, lsan, msan, tsan), and only in `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` (#38699) and `x86_64-apple-darwin` (#41352).
As of the LLVM 4.0 merge (rust-lang/compiler-rt@c8a8767c5), compiler-rt actually [supports](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-rt/blob/c8a8767c56a... | B-unstable<|endoftext|>T-dev-tools<|endoftext|>A-sanitizers<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>A-cli | 28 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/39699 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39699 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/39699/comments |
198,392,796 | 38,789 | NVPTX backend metabug | The NVPTX backend has been available since: nightly-2017-01-XX
This is a collections of bugs and TODOs related to it.
### Documentation
- [How to: Run Rust code on your NVIDIA GPU](https://github.com/japaric/nvptx)
### Bugs
- LLVM assertion when compiling `core` to PTX. #38824
- LLVM error when emitt... | It would be better if instead of having to create a new module / crate, adding the `#![feature(abi_ptx)]` feature, and then declaring the kernels as `extern "ptx-kernel" fn foo() {}`, we could just handle this using `#[target_feature]`, so that one can add kernels within a non-kernel Rust module. It would be great if t... | metabug<|endoftext|>O-NVPTX<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 28 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38789 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38789 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38789/comments |
198,392,389 | 38,788 | Tracking issue for the "ptx-kernel" ABI | Introduced in #38559.
Feature gate: `abi_ptx`
This ABI is used to generate ["global"] functions. All the other functions that *don't* use the "ptx-kernel" ABI are ["device"] functions.
["global"]: https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/#global
["device"]: https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-pro... | Triage: not aware of any movement on stabilizing this.<|endoftext|>would be very interested in this! any of y'all know what needs doing to bring this back to life?
edit: following links through the metabug, and then through a project that mentioned the metabug, looks like there are in fact folks still interested. co... | T-compiler<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>O-NVPTX<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 6 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38788 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38788 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38788/comments |
196,574,760 | 38,487 | Tracking issue for the `msp430-interrupt` calling convention/ABI | Added in #38465
This calling convention is used to define interrup handlers on MSP430 microcontrollers. Usage looks like this:
``` rust
#[no_mangle]
#[link_section = "__interrupt_vector_10"]
pub static TIM0_VECTOR: unsafe extern "msp430-interrupt" fn() = tim0;
unsafe extern "msp430-interrupt" fn tim0() {
... | Triage: not aware of any movement on stabilizing this.<|endoftext|>@japaric @steveklabnik My understanding is that upstream wants to prevent proliferation of various calling conventions, hence no movement on this.
The "special" calling convention for msp430 is: You must save all registers that you modify (except `PC... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>WG-embedded<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary<|endoftext|>O-msp430 | 5 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38487 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38487 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/38487/comments |
190,298,329 | 37,854 | Tracking issue for exclusive range patterns | ### Concerns
- Conflict with the syntax of slice patterns https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23121
- General concern about the syntax of inclusive/exclusive patterns
### History and status
- Proposed and implemented in PR #35712
- [approved provisionally by lang team](https://github.com/rust-lang/... | **EDIT:** the following is no longer true 12 jan 2019 nightly debug 2018:
Missing `warning: unreachable pattern` in the case when `1...10` then `1..10` are present in that order. That warning is present in case of `1..12` then `1..11` for example.
<details>
<summary>
Example (playground [link](https://play.rust... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-exclusive_range_pattern<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 50 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/37854 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37854 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/37854/comments |
147,037,803 | 32,838 | Allocator traits and std::heap | 📢 **This feature has a dedicated working group**, please direct comments and concerns to [the working group's repo](https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators).
The remainder of this post is no longer an accurate summary of the current state; see that dedicated working group instead.
<details>
<summary>Old con... | I unfortunately wasn't paying close enough attention to mention this in the RFC discussion, but I think that `realloc_in_place` should be replaced by two functions, `grow_in_place` and `shrink_in_place`, for two reasons:
- I can't think of a single use case (short of implementing `realloc` or `realloc_in_place`) where ... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>A-allocators<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>T-libs-api<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>Libs-Tracked<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 465 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/32838 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32838 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/32838/comments |
115,559,940 | 29,661 | Tracking issue for RFC 2532, "Associated type defaults" | This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Associated type defaults" (rust-lang/rfcs#2532) under the feature gate `#![feature(associated_type_defaults)]`.
--------------------------
The [associated item RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/195) included the ability to provide defaults for associated types, with... | One use case I’ve had for this is a default method whose return type is an associated type:
``` rust
/// "Callbacks" for a push-based parser
trait Sink {
fn handle_foo(&mut self, ...);
// ...
type Output = Self;
fn finish(self) -> Self::Output { self }
}
```
This means that `Output` and `finish` need... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>A-associated-items<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>F-associated_type_defaults<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 36 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29661 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29661 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29661/comments |
115,375,038 | 29,639 | Tracking issue for `no_core` stabilization | The `no_core` feature allows you to avoid linking to `libcore`.
| Perhaps it would be better to give this a 'positive' name, like `[freestanding]`?
<|endoftext|>`no_core` is basically useless on its own at the moment; you need `lang_items` to actually implement enough of the core traits to allow compiling anything non-trivial.
<|endoftext|>Traige: no change<|endoftext|>> no_core is b... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 18 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29639 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29639 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29639/comments |
115,362,366 | 29,635 | Tracking issue for `fundamental` feature | This feature flag, part of [RFC 1023](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1023), is not intended to be stabilized as-is. But this issue tracks discussion about whether _some_ external feature it needed. Perhaps there is a cleaner way to address the balance between negative reasoning and API evolution. See the RFC fo... | Triage: no changes<|endoftext|>See alexcrichton/futures-rs#479 for an example of something this would solve.<|endoftext|>Triage: not aware of any change.<|endoftext|>So here's a fun bug due to lacking validation:
`a.rs`:
```rust
#![feature(fundamental)]
#[fundamental]
pub struct Foo;
```
`b.rs`:
```rust
... | T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 26 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29635 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29635 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/29635/comments |
47,667,338 | 18,598 | DST/custom coercions | Tracking issue for RFC rust-lang/rfcs#982.
Current state:
- [x] Implementation work (largely done)
- [ ] Stabilization -- the `CoerceUnsized` trait is unstable and we wish to revisit its design before stabilizing, so for now only stdlib types can be "unsized"
Things to consider prior to stabilization
* Int... | I'm confused as to what this is about. isn't https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/18469 the tracking issue?
<|endoftext|>Yes, this is a specific part of 18469. Seems useful to have it by itself since it stands alone (goes for the other issues too).
<|endoftext|>Is there anything that could be done to push this towa... | B-RFC-approved<|endoftext|>A-dst<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>A-coercions<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 29 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/18598 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/18598 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/18598/comments |
37,933,340 | 15,701 | Tracking issue for stmt_expr_attributes: Add attributes to expressions, etc. | Tracking RFC 40: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/16
| cc @huonw
<|endoftext|>ping. will this be implemented before 1.0?
<|endoftext|>The RFC suggests
> The sort of things one could do with other arbitrary annotations are
>
> ``` rust
> #[allowed_unsafe_actions(ffi)]
> #[audited="2014-04-22"]
> unsafe { ... }
> ```
>
> and then have an external tool that checks that th... | A-grammar<|endoftext|>T-lang<|endoftext|>B-unstable<|endoftext|>B-RFC-implemented<|endoftext|>C-tracking-issue<|endoftext|>S-tracking-design-concerns<|endoftext|>S-tracking-needs-summary | 111 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701 | https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701 | https://api.github.com/repos/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701/comments |
Subsets and Splits
RFC Issues in Rust
Retrieves detailed descriptions of issues with titles containing "RFC", providing a sample of such issues’ content for further review.