[rustdoc] Fix doc_cfg feature on reexports#156073
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 3 commits intorust-lang:mainfrom May 3, 2026
Merged
[rustdoc] Fix doc_cfg feature on reexports#156073rust-bors[bot] merged 3 commits intorust-lang:mainfrom
doc_cfg feature on reexports#156073rust-bors[bot] merged 3 commits intorust-lang:mainfrom
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Urgau
reviewed
May 2, 2026
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
doc-cfg-reexports
branch
from
1f59167 to
ba27564
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Member
|
@bors r+ |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2026
…r=Urgau [rustdoc] Fix `doc_cfg` feature on reexports Part of rust-lang#150268. I don't mark the issue as fixed as I need to check the third case described in the issue. First commit comes from rust-lang#156020, will need to rebase this PR once the original is merged. r? @Urgau
Contributor
|
⌛ Testing commit ba27564 with merge 5bc49ce... Workflow: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/25281218345 |
Contributor
|
@bors yield |
Contributor
|
Auto build was cancelled. Cancelled workflows: The next pull request likely to be tested is #156111. |
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #156073 ([rustdoc] Fix `doc_cfg` feature on reexports) - #152216 (Fix 'assign to data in an index of' collection suggestions) - #155433 (Rip out rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_* attribute support) - #156098 (Hand-implement `impl Debug for NumBuffer` to avoid constraining `T` or printing MaybeUninit)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2026
Rollup merge of #156073 - GuillaumeGomez:doc-cfg-reexports, r=Urgau [rustdoc] Fix `doc_cfg` feature on reexports Part of #150268. I don't mark the issue as fixed as I need to check the third case described in the issue. First commit comes from #156020, will need to rebase this PR once the original is merged. r? @Urgau
github-actions Bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#156073 ([rustdoc] Fix `doc_cfg` feature on reexports) - rust-lang/rust#152216 (Fix 'assign to data in an index of' collection suggestions) - rust-lang/rust#155433 (Rip out rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_* attribute support) - rust-lang/rust#156098 (Hand-implement `impl Debug for NumBuffer` to avoid constraining `T` or printing MaybeUninit)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Part of #150268.
I don't mark the issue as fixed as I need to check the third case described in the issue. First commit comes from #156020, will need to rebase this PR once the original is merged.
r? @Urgau