fix panic with reference in macro
it panic at `builder.make_mut(segment)`, where segment is from macro expand. And the usage reference in orginal macro call isn't a `PathSegment` so we can't update it in `apply_references`, I can't find a way to deal with it properly so here just filter out the reference in macro. LMK if there are better way to fix this
try to close https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/16328
We don't query this information out of the promoted (it's basically a
single "unit" regardless of the complexity within it) and this saves on
re-initializing the SparseIntervalMatrix's backing IndexVec with mostly
empty rows for all of the leading regions in the function. Typical
promoteds will only contain a few regions that need up be uplifted,
while the parent function can have thousands.
For a simple function repeating println!("Hello world"); 50,000 times
this reduces compile times from 90 to 15 seconds in debug mode. The
previous implementations re-initialization led to an overall roughly n^2
runtime as each promoted initialized slots for ~n regions, now we scale
closer to linearly (5000 hello worlds takes 1.1 seconds).
LLVM 18 x86 data layout update
With https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310 LLVM now has i128 aligned to 16-bytes on x86 based platforms. This will be in LLVM-18. This patch updates all our spec targets to be 16-byte aligned, and removes the alignment when speaking to older LLVM.
This results in Rust overaligning things relative to LLVM on older LLVMs.
This implements MCP https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/683.
See #54341
InPlaceDstBufDrop holds onto the allocation before the shrinking happens
which means it must deallocate the destination elements but the source
allocation.
Work through temporarily allowed clippy lints, part 1
This is the first batch of not allowing but actually fixing the clippy lints. Each commit removes one lint from the lint table and then fixes the resulting warnings.
Follow-up to #16401
Restrict access to the private field of newtype indexes
Well... we don't have the capability to forbid you to access private fields in the same module, and I don't want to add module shenanigans in the expansion of the macro. So... we just name the field creatively so that no one actually uses it.
Suggest `.swap()` when encountering conflicting borrows from `mem::swap` on a slice
This PR modifies the existing suggestion by matching on `[ProjectionElem::Deref, ProjectionElem::Index(_)]` instead of just `[ProjectionElem::Index(_)]`, which caused us to miss many cases. Additionally, it adds a more specific, machine-applicable suggestion in the case we determine `mem::swap` was used to swap elements in a slice.
Closes#102269
Don't add needs-triage to A-diagnostics
A-diagnostics is already labeled correctly thanks to the template and there usually isn't much to do on those issues, so it's fine to just add them to the pile.
never_patterns: typecheck never patterns
This checks that a `!` pattern is only used on an uninhabited type (modulo match ergonomics, i.e. `!` is allowed on `&Void`).
r? `@compiler-errors`
Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.
The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped.
If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate.
[Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286#issuecomment-1862159766)
Exhaustiveness: simplify empty pattern logic
The logic that handles empty patterns had gotten quite convoluted. This PR simplifies it a lot. I tried to make the logic as easy as possible to follow; this only does logically equivalent changes.
The first commit is a drive-by comment clarification that was requested after another PR a while back.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
This PR does a few different things based around stabilizing `slice_first_last_chunk`. They are split up so this PR can be by-commit reviewed, I can move parts to a separate PR if desired.
This feature provides a very elegant API to extract arrays from either end of a slice, such as for parsing integers from binary data.
## Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/69
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774
This stabilizes the functionality from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774:
```rust
impl [T] {
pub const fn first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn split_first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T; N], &[T])>;
pub fn split_first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T; N], &mut [T])>;
pub const fn split_last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T], &[T; N])>;
pub fn split_last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T; N])>;
}
```
Const stabilization is included for all non-mut methods, which are blocked on `const_mut_refs`. This change includes marking the trivial function `slice_split_at_unchecked` const-stable for internal use (but not fully stable).
## Remove `split_array` slice methods
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83233#pullrequestreview-780315524
This PR also removes the following unstable methods from the `split_array` feature, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091:
```rust
impl<T> [T] {
pub fn split_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T; N], &[T]);
pub fn split_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T; N], &mut [T]);
pub fn rsplit_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T], &[T; N]);
pub fn rsplit_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T; N]);
}
```
This is done because discussion at #90091 and its implementation PR indicate a strong preference for nonpanicking APIs that return `Option`. The only difference between functions under the `split_array` and `slice_first_last_chunk` features is `Option` vs. panic, so remove the duplicates as part of this stabilization.
This does not affect the array methods from `split_array`. We will want to revisit these once `generic_const_exprs` is further along.
## Reverse order of return tuple for `split_last_chunk{,_mut}`
An unresolved question for #111774 is whether to return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` (`(&[T], &[T; N])`) or the reverse (`(&[T; N], &[T])`), from `split_last_chunk` and `split_last_chunk_mut`. It is currently implemented as `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)` which matches `split_last -> (&T, &[T])`. The first commit changes these to `(&[T], &[T; N])` for these reasons:
- More consistent with other splitting methods that return multiple values: `str::rsplit_once`, `slice::split_at{,_mut}`, `slice::align_to` all return tuples with the items in order
- More intuitive (arguably opinion, but it is consistent with other language elements like pattern matching `let [a, b, rest @ ..] ...`
- If we ever added a varidic way to obtain multiple chunks, it would likely return something in order: `.split_many_last::<(2, 4)>() -> (&[T], &[T; 2], &[T; 4])`
- It is the ordering used in the `rsplit_array` methods
I think the inconsistency with `split_last` could be acceptable in this case, since for `split_last` the scalar `&T` doesn't have any internal order to maintain with the other items.
## Unresolved questions
Do we want to reserve the same names on `[u8; N]` to avoid inference confusion? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117561#issuecomment-1793388647
---
`slice_first_last_chunk` has only been around since early 2023, but `split_array` has been around since 2021.
`@rustbot` label -T-libs +T-libs-api -T-libs +needs-fcp
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval,` `@scottmcm` who raised this topic, `@clarfonthey` implementer of `slice_first_last_chunk` `@jethrogb` implementer of `split_array`
Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Stabilizing.20array-from-slice.20*something*.3FFixes: #111774
use implied bounds compat mode in MIR borrowck
cc
- #119956
- #118553
This should hopefully fix bevy 🤔 `cargo test` ends up freezing my computer though, cargo build went from err to ok however 😁
r? `@jackh726`
