r? @nikomatsakis 

This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1174][rfc] which adds three new traits
to the standard library:

* `IntoRawFd` - implemented on Unix for all I/O types (files, sockets, etc)
* `IntoRawHandle` - implemented on Windows for files, processes, etc
* `IntoRawSocket` - implemented on Windows for networking types

[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1174-into-raw-fd-socket-handle-traits.md

Closes #27062

This commit fixes the negate_unsigned feature gate to appropriately
account for inferred variables.

This is technically a [breaking-change], but I’d consider it a bug fix.

cc @brson for your relnotes.

Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24676
Fixes #26840 
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/25206

This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1174][rfc] which adds three new traits
to the standard library:

* `IntoRawFd` - implemented on Unix for all I/O types (files, sockets, etc)
* `IntoRawHandle` - implemented on Windows for files, processes, etc
* `IntoRawSocket` - implemented on Windows for networking types

[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1174-into-raw-fd-socket-handle-traits.md

Closes #27062

See the commits for details

r? @arielb1 

Variables for closures hold a tuple of captured variables, and not the
function itself.

Fixes #26484

Blurs the document's background when the help dialogue is present,
making the contents of the dialogue stand out more.

Blurs the document's background when the help dialogue is present,
making the contents of the dialogue stand out more.

closes #20825

r? @pnkfelix 

Ipv4Addr::is_documentation() matches 513 /24 blocks when it should only match 3.

closes #23491

Previously, these would both be labeled as methods.

This closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27042.

I'd love to know if there's a way to make a regression test for this!

closes #15919

Fixes #26802.

Fixes #22863.

closes #15919

closes #23491

Previously, these would both be labeled as methods.

I wrote a reasonably optimized version for both functions. Further optimizations are possible but I tried to keep the code size small (which I think is important), it's a road of diminished gains.

The repository used for testing/benchmarks is https://github.com/arthurprs/rust-optimized-inttostr

Benchmarks are ran for 3 different distributions, bellow are string length histograms for the u32 type

* _h (big numbers skew)
[0, 0, 5, 29, 103, 212, 551, 1138, 1887, 3196, 2879]
* _m (slight small number skew):
[0, 2807, 1334, 1057, 905, 821, 772, 707, 627, 605, 365]
* _l (small numbers skew):
[0, 8004, 567, 351, 248, 212, 170, 126, 136, 112, 74]

Tested processors are
* x64 laptop (i7-2670QM)
* x32 server (Digital Ocean E5-2630L-v2)

### Display

It uses a small look up table (200 bytes) and decode up to 4 characters at a time. I also took special precautions to reduce 64bit arithmetic on 32bit architectures and the gains are huge in these cases.

Overall, on modern 64bit CPUs it's pretty much the same speed as the stdlib implementation for very small numbers (0..99), but pulls ahead as the length of the decimal increases. On slight older CPUs (w/ worse ALUs) or 32bit architectures it's pretty much always faster.

x64 benchmarks
```
test bench::display_h_new_u08     ... bench:      71,041 ns/iter (+/- 2,894)
test bench::display_h_new_u16     ... bench:     378,255 ns/iter (+/- 36,547)
test bench::display_h_new_u32     ... bench:   4,232,483 ns/iter (+/- 509,661)
test bench::display_h_new_u64     ... bench:   5,166,740 ns/iter (+/- 421,124)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u08  ... bench:      73,536 ns/iter (+/- 5,287)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     451,443 ns/iter (+/- 16,879)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   5,551,070 ns/iter (+/- 518,151)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u64  ... bench:   8,624,374 ns/iter (+/- 643,701)
test bench::display_l_new_u08     ... bench:      71,547 ns/iter (+/- 504)
test bench::display_l_new_u16     ... bench:     399,727 ns/iter (+/- 28,030)
test bench::display_l_new_u32     ... bench:   4,365,303 ns/iter (+/- 414,414)
test bench::display_l_new_u64     ... bench:   5,302,382 ns/iter (+/- 292,324)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u08  ... bench:      75,445 ns/iter (+/- 2,487)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     444,313 ns/iter (+/- 16,203)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   5,761,801 ns/iter (+/- 387,186)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u64  ... bench:   8,790,365 ns/iter (+/- 614,846)
test bench::display_m_new_u08     ... bench:      71,820 ns/iter (+/- 2,956)
test bench::display_m_new_u16     ... bench:     399,649 ns/iter (+/- 20,643)
test bench::display_m_new_u32     ... bench:   4,355,561 ns/iter (+/- 179,189)
test bench::display_m_new_u64     ... bench:   5,070,594 ns/iter (+/- 341,950)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u08  ... bench:      74,900 ns/iter (+/- 1,909)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     448,788 ns/iter (+/- 20,791)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   5,717,939 ns/iter (+/- 316,824)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u64  ... bench:   8,787,160 ns/iter (+/- 482,864)
```

x86 benchmarks
```
test bench::display_h_new_u08     ... bench:      94,246 ns/iter (+/- 34,872)
test bench::display_h_new_u16     ... bench:     533,805 ns/iter (+/- 22,499)
test bench::display_h_new_u32     ... bench:   6,127,747 ns/iter (+/- 2,192,789)
test bench::display_h_new_u64     ... bench:  14,994,203 ns/iter (+/- 1,609,345)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u08  ... bench:     107,233 ns/iter (+/- 8,571)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     631,186 ns/iter (+/- 11,332)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   7,696,344 ns/iter (+/- 957,917)
test bench::display_h_stdlib_u64  ... bench:  45,677,401 ns/iter (+/- 4,991,344)
test bench::display_l_new_u08     ... bench:      95,855 ns/iter (+/- 27,735)
test bench::display_l_new_u16     ... bench:     532,084 ns/iter (+/- 40,479)
test bench::display_l_new_u32     ... bench:   5,973,953 ns/iter (+/- 211,676)
test bench::display_l_new_u64     ... bench:  14,773,064 ns/iter (+/- 1,276,579)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u08  ... bench:     106,350 ns/iter (+/- 63,963)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     637,746 ns/iter (+/- 101,005)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   7,740,640 ns/iter (+/- 848,478)
test bench::display_l_stdlib_u64  ... bench:  44,846,932 ns/iter (+/- 4,514,694)
test bench::display_m_new_u08     ... bench:      94,549 ns/iter (+/- 13,029)
test bench::display_m_new_u16     ... bench:     546,030 ns/iter (+/- 35,804)
test bench::display_m_new_u32     ... bench:   5,983,924 ns/iter (+/- 1,180,559)
test bench::display_m_new_u64     ... bench:  14,817,873 ns/iter (+/- 2,271,464)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u08  ... bench:     107,806 ns/iter (+/- 8,805)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u16  ... bench:     630,714 ns/iter (+/- 6,586)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u32  ... bench:   7,784,210 ns/iter (+/- 358,601)
test bench::display_m_stdlib_u64  ... bench:  46,223,927 ns/iter (+/- 6,553,176)
```

### from_str_radix (FromStr)

All valid digits are ascii so I modified the function to use the underlining bytes instead and simplified the match to avoid wasting cycles.

x64 benchmarks
```
test bench::from_str_h_new_u08    ... bench:      28,153 ns/iter (+/- 624)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u16    ... bench:     223,513 ns/iter (+/- 11,554)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u32    ... bench:   3,098,935 ns/iter (+/- 231,022)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u64    ... bench:   5,009,900 ns/iter (+/- 341,961)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      34,033 ns/iter (+/- 2,068)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     248,785 ns/iter (+/- 14,208)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,150,536 ns/iter (+/- 266,070)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u64 ... bench:   6,817,997 ns/iter (+/- 449,838)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u08    ... bench:      27,552 ns/iter (+/- 1,500)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u16    ... bench:     234,360 ns/iter (+/- 13,144)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u32    ... bench:   3,140,261 ns/iter (+/- 248,175)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u64    ... bench:   5,176,583 ns/iter (+/- 350,416)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      35,060 ns/iter (+/- 2,154)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     252,135 ns/iter (+/- 23,461)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,154,599 ns/iter (+/- 369,606)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u64 ... bench:   6,892,767 ns/iter (+/- 213,030)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u08    ... bench:      28,252 ns/iter (+/- 1,384)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u16    ... bench:     231,051 ns/iter (+/- 16,540)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u32    ... bench:   3,166,504 ns/iter (+/- 134,418)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u64    ... bench:   5,103,195 ns/iter (+/- 218,912)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      35,012 ns/iter (+/- 2,735)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     250,967 ns/iter (+/- 14,708)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,101,845 ns/iter (+/- 205,802)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u64 ... bench:   6,823,001 ns/iter (+/- 267,215)
```

x86 benchmarks
```
test bench::from_str_h_new_u08    ... bench:      23,682 ns/iter (+/- 3,590)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u16    ... bench:     190,916 ns/iter (+/- 29,688)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u32    ... bench:   2,649,952 ns/iter (+/- 308,576)
test bench::from_str_h_new_u64    ... bench:  23,458,434 ns/iter (+/- 2,327,427)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      45,551 ns/iter (+/- 6,968)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     313,739 ns/iter (+/- 17,175)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,615,669 ns/iter (+/- 470,766)
test bench::from_str_h_stdlib_u64 ... bench:  30,589,482 ns/iter (+/- 2,278,996)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u08    ... bench:      23,763 ns/iter (+/- 5,545)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u16    ... bench:     185,472 ns/iter (+/- 33,097)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u32    ... bench:   2,691,307 ns/iter (+/- 473,886)
test bench::from_str_l_new_u64    ... bench:  22,952,593 ns/iter (+/- 1,963,742)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      45,285 ns/iter (+/- 16,337)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     313,624 ns/iter (+/- 6,643)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,595,679 ns/iter (+/- 1,876,361)
test bench::from_str_l_stdlib_u64 ... bench:  30,434,683 ns/iter (+/- 1,901,996)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u08    ... bench:      23,812 ns/iter (+/- 1,505)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u16    ... bench:     185,553 ns/iter (+/- 19,788)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u32    ... bench:   2,614,920 ns/iter (+/- 66,230)
test bench::from_str_m_new_u64    ... bench:  23,241,778 ns/iter (+/- 3,474,077)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u08 ... bench:      45,634 ns/iter (+/- 1,436)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u16 ... bench:     316,479 ns/iter (+/- 21,212)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u32 ... bench:   4,609,147 ns/iter (+/- 487,068)
test bench::from_str_m_stdlib_u64 ... bench:  30,165,173 ns/iter (+/- 1,601,830)
```

As per topic :-).

Part of #24407.
r? @Manishearth 

And some other outdated language. @echochamber came asking about these docs
on IRC today, and they're a bit weird. I've updated them to be less ambiguous
and use contemporary terminology.

Per the title.  I've linked to the reference at http://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#type-parameters-1, but I'm not sure that's such a good link - but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of explanation elsewhere in the reference either...

closes #21332

It seems slightly more consistent to say 'Clones' here instead of 'Copies'. The docs for the `ToOwned` trait talk about cloning and not copying.

It seems slightly more consistent to say 'Clones' here instead of 'Copies'.
The docs for the `ToOwned` trait talk about cloning and not copying.

closes #21332

Add Ipv4Addr tests to verify doc address checking.

closes #14821

closes #20825

closes #14821