make Cell unstably const
Now that we can do interior mutability in `const`, most of the Cell API can be `const fn`. :) The main exception is `set`, because it drops the old value. So from const context one has to use `replace`, which delegates the responsibility for dropping to the caller.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131283
`as_array_of_cells` is itself still unstable to I added the const-ness to the feature gate for that function and not to `const_cell`, Cc #88248.
r? libs-api
Stabilize the `map`/`value` methods on `ControlFlow`
And fix the stability attribute on the `pub use` in `core::ops`.
libs-api in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75744#issuecomment-2231214910 seemed reasonably happy with naming for these, so let's try for an FCP.
Summary:
```rust
impl<B, C> ControlFlow<B, C> {
pub fn break_value(self) -> Option<B>;
pub fn map_break<T>(self, f: impl FnOnce(B) -> T) -> ControlFlow<T, C>;
pub fn continue_value(self) -> Option<C>;
pub fn map_continue<T>(self, f: impl FnOnce(C) -> T) -> ControlFlow<B, T>;
}
```
Resolves#75744
``@rustbot`` label +needs-fcp +t-libs-api -t-libs
---
Aside, in case it keeps someone else from going down the same dead end: I looked at the `{break,continue}_value` methods and tried to make them `const` as part of this, but that's disallowed because of not having `const Drop`, so put it back to not even unstably-const.
Add `[Option<T>; N]::transpose`
This PR as a new unstable libs API, `[Option<T>; N]::transpose`, which permits going from `[Option<T>; N]` to `Option<[T; N]>`.
This new API doesn't have an ACP as it was directly asked by T-libs-api in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97601#issuecomment-2372109119:
> [..] but it'd be trivial to provide a helper method `.transpose()` that turns array-of-Option into Option-of-array (**and we think that method should exist**; it already does for array-of-MaybeUninit).
r? libs
Update Unicode escapes in `/library/core/src/char/methods.rs`
`char::MAX` is inconsistent on how Unicode escapes should be formatted. This PR resolves that.
ptr::add/sub: do not claim equivalence with `offset(c as isize)`
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110837, the `offset` intrinsic got changed to also allow a `usize` offset parameter. The intention is that this will do an unsigned multiplication with the size, and we have UB if that overflows -- and we also have UB if the result is larger than `usize::MAX`, i.e., if a subsequent cast to `isize` would wrap. ~~The LLVM backend sets some attributes accordingly.~~
This updates the docs for `add`/`sub` to match that intent, in preparation for adjusting codegen to exploit this UB. We use this opportunity to clarify what the exact requirements are: we compute the offset using mathematical multiplication (so it's no problem to have an `isize * usize` multiplication, we just multiply integers), and the result must fit in an `isize`.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@nikic`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130239 updates Miri to detect this UB.
`sub` still has some cases of UB not reflected in the underlying intrinsic semantics (and Miri does not catch): when we subtract `usize::MAX`, then after casting to `isize` that's just `-1` so we end up adding one unit without noticing any UB, but actually the offset we gave does not fit in an `isize`. Miri will currently still not complain for such cases:
```rust
fn main() {
let x = &[0i32; 2];
let x = x.as_ptr();
// This should be UB, we are subtracting way too much.
unsafe { x.sub(usize::MAX).read() };
}
```
However, the LLVM IR we generate here also is UB-free. This is "just" library UB but not language UB.
Cc `@saethlin;` might be worth adding precondition checks against overflow on `offset`/`add`/`sub`?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130211
make ptr metadata functions callable from stable const fn
So far this was done with a bunch of `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable`. But those should be the exception, not the norm. If we are confident we can expose the ptr metadata APIs *indirectly* in stable const fn, we should just mark them as `rustc_const_stable`. And we better be confident we can do that since it's already been done a while ago. ;)
In particular this marks two intrinsics as const-stable: `aggregate_raw_ptr`, `ptr_metadata`. This should be uncontroversial, they are trivial to implement in the interpreter.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/lang`
stabilize const_cell_into_inner
This const-stabilizes
- `UnsafeCell::into_inner`
- `Cell::into_inner`
- `RefCell::into_inner`
- `OnceCell::into_inner`
`@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` this uses `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(const_precise_live_drops)`, so we'd be comitting to always finding *some* way to accept this code. IMO that's fine -- what these functions do is to move out the only field of a struct, and that struct has no destructor itself. The field's destructor does not get run as it gets returned to the caller.
`@rust-lang/libs-api` this was FCP'd already [years ago](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78729#issuecomment-811409860), except that `OnceCell::into_inner` was added to the same feature gate since then (Cc `@tgross35).` Does that mean we have to re-run the FCP? If yes, I'd honestly prefer to move `OnceCell` into its own feature gate to not risk missing the next release. (That's why it's not great to add new functions to an already FCP'd feature gate.) OTOH if this needs an FCP either way since the previous FCP was so long ago, then we might as well do it all at once.
Improve Ord docs
- Makes wording more clear and re-structures some sections that can be overwhelming for someone not already in the know.
- Adds examples of how *not* to implement Ord, inspired by various anti-patterns found in real world code.
Many of the wording changes are inspired directly by my personal experience of being confused by the `Ord` docs and seeing other people get it wrong as well, especially lately having looked at a number of `Ord` implementations as part of #128899.
Created with help by `@orlp.`
r? `@workingjubilee`
Update `catch_unwind` doc comments for `c_unwind`
Updates `catch_unwind` doc comments to indicate that catching a foreign exception _will no longer_ be UB. Instead, there are two possible behaviors, though it is not specified which one an implementation will choose.
Nominated for t-lang to confirm that they are okay with making such a promise based on t-opsem FCP, or whether they would like to be included in the FCP.
Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115285, https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1226
- Makes wording more clear and re-structures some
sections that can be overwhelming for some not
already in the know.
- Adds examples of how *not* to implement Ord,
inspired by various anti-patterns found in real
world code.
