Document that `Vec::from_raw_parts[_in]` must be given a pointer from the correct allocator.
Currently, the documentation of `Vec::from_raw_parts` and `Vec::from_raw_parts_in` says nothing about what allocator the pointer must come from. This PR adds that missing information explicitly.
Don't derive Debug for `OnceWith` & `RepeatWith`
Closures don't impl Debug, so the derived impl is kinda useless. The behavior of not debug-printing closures is consistent with the rest of the iterator adapters/sources.
Loosen the bound on the Debug implementation of Weak.
Both `rc::Weak<T>` and `sync::Weak<T>` currently require `T: Debug` in their own `Debug` implementations, but they don't currently use it; they only ever print a fixed string.
A general implementation of Debug for Weak that actually attempts to upgrade and rely on the contents is unlikely in the future because it may have unbounded recursion in the presence of reference cycles, which Weak is commonly used in. (This was the justification for why the current implementation [was implemented the way it is](f0976e2cf3)).
When I brought it up [on the forum](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/could-the-bound-on-weak-debug-be-relaxed/15504), it was suggested that, even if an implementation is specialized in the future that relies on the data stored within the Weak, it would likely rely on specialization anyway, and could therefore easily specialize on the Debug bound as well.
Update `rand` in the stdlib tests, and remove the `getrandom` feature from it.
The main goal is actually removing `getrandom`, so that eventually we can allow running the stdlib test suite on tier3 targets which don't have `getrandom` support. Currently those targets can only run the subset of stdlib tests that exist in uitests, and (generally speaking), we prefer not to test libstd functionality in uitests, which came up recently in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104095 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185. Additionally, the fact that we can't update `rand`/`getrandom` means we're stuck with the old set of tier3 targets, so can't test new ones.
~~Anyway, I haven't checked that this actually does allow use on tier3 targets (I think it does not, as some work is needed in stdlib submodules) but it moves us slightly closer to this, and seems to allow at least finally updating our `rand` dep, which definitely improves the status quo.~~ Checked and works now.
For the most part, our tests and benchmarks are fine using hard-coded seeds. A couple tests seem to fail with this (stuff manipulating the environment expecting no collisions, for example), or become pointless (all inputs to a function become equivalent). In these cases I've done a (gross) dance (ab)using `RandomState` and `Location::caller()` for some extra "entropy".
Trying to share that code seems *way* more painful than it's worth given that the duplication is a 7-line function, even if the lines are quite gross. (Keeping in mind that sharing it would require adding `rand` as a non-dev dep to std, and exposing a type from it publicly, all of which sounds truly awful, even if done behind a perma-unstable feature).
See also some previous attempts:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963 (in particular https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963#issuecomment-885438936 which explains why this is non-trivial)
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89131
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96626#issuecomment-1114562857 (I tried in that PR at the same time, but settled for just removing the usage of `thread_rng()` from the benchmarks, since that was the main goal).
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185
- Probably more. It's very tempting of a thing to "just update".
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Improve include macro documentation
As outlined in #106118, the `include!` macro is a SEO problem when it comes to the Rust documentation. Beginners may see it as a replacement to `include` syntax in other languages. I feel like this documentation should quite explicitly link to the modules' documentation.
The primary goal of this PR is to address that issue by adding a warning to the documentation. While I was here, I also added some other parts. This included a `Uses` section and some (intra doc) links to other relevant topics.
I hope this can help beginners to Rust more quickly understand some multi-file project intricacies.
# References
- Syntax for the warning: 58accc6da3/tracing/src/lib.rs (L55)
Fix a few clippy lints in libtest
- Remove unnecessary references and dereferences
- Use `.contains` instead of `a <= x && x <= b`
- Use `mem::take` instead of `mem::replace` where possible
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106394 :)
Suggest `impl Fn*` and `impl Future` in `-> _` return suggestions
Follow-up to #106172, only the last commit is relevant. Can rebase once that PR is landed for easier review.
Suggests `impl Future` and `impl Fn{,Mut,Once}` in `-> _` return suggestions.
r? `@estebank`
default OOM handler: use non-unwinding panic, to match std handler
The OOM handler in std will by default abort. This adjusts the default in liballoc to do the same, using the `can_unwind` flag on the panic info to indicate a non-unwinding panic.
In practice this probably makes little difference since the liballoc default will only come into play in no-std situations where people write a custom panic handler, which most likely will not implement unwinding. But still, this seems more consistent.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-allocators,` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66741
- Remove unnecessary references and dereferences
- Use `.contains` instead of `a <= x && x <= b`
- Use `mem::take` instead of `mem::replace` where possible
`Split*::as_str` refactor
I've made this patch almost a year ago, so the rename and the behavior change are in one commit, sorry 😅
This fixes#84974, as it's required to make other changes work.
This PR
- Renames `as_str` method of string `Split*` iterators to `remainder` (it seems like the `as_str` name was confusing to users)
- Makes `remainder` return `Option<&str>`, to distinguish between "the iterator is exhausted" and "the tail is empty", this was [required on the tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77998#issuecomment-832696619)
r? `@m-ou-se`
Add notes and examples about non-intuitive `PathBuf::set_extension` behavior
Basically, passing the empty string will actually remove the extension instead of setting it to the empty string. This might change what is considered to be an extension. Additionally, passing an extension that contains dots will make the path only consider the last part of it to be the new extension.
Context is no longer Sync so this doesn't work.
error[E0277]: `*mut ()` cannot be shared between threads safely
--> library/core/tests/task.rs:24:21
|
24 | static CONTEXT: Context<'static> = Context::from_waker(&WAKER);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `*mut ()` cannot be shared between threads safely
|
= help: within `Context<'static>`, the trait `Sync` is not implemented for `*mut ()`
= note: required because it appears within the type `PhantomData<*mut ()>`
= note: required because it appears within the type `Context<'static>`
= note: shared static variables must have a type that implements `Sync`
Revert "Implement allow-by-default `multiple_supertrait_upcastable` lint"
This is a clean revert of #105484.
I confirmed that reverting that PR fixes the regression reported in #106247. ~~I can't say I understand what this code is doing, but maybe it can be re-landed with a different implementation.~~ **Edit:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106247#issuecomment-1367174384 has an explanation of why #105484 ends up surfacing spurious `where_clause_object_safety` errors. The implementation of `where_clause_object_safety` assumes we only check whether a trait is object safe when somebody actually uses that trait with `dyn`. However the implementation of `multiple_supertrait_upcastable` added in the problematic PR involves checking *every* trait for whether it is object-safe.
FYI `@nbdd0121` `@compiler-errors`
Unify id-based thread parking implementations
Multiple platforms currently use thread-id-based parking implementations (NetBSD and SGX[^1]). Even though the strategy does not differ, these are duplicated for each platform, as the id is encoded into an atomic thread variable in different ways for each platform.
Since `park` is only called by one thread, it is possible to move the thread id into a separate field. By ensuring that the field is only written to once, before any other threads access it, these accesses can be unsynchronized, removing any restrictions on the size and niches of the thread id.
This PR also renames the internal `thread_parker` modules to `thread_parking`, as that name now better reflects their contents. I hope this does not add too much reviewing noise.
r? `@m-ou-se`
`@rustbot` label +T-libs
[^1]: SOLID supports this as well, I will switch it over in a follow-up PR.
Basically, passing the empty string will actually remove the extension
instead of setting it to the empty string. This might change what is
considered to be an extension. Additionally, passing an extension that
contains dots will make the path only consider the last part of it to be
the new extension.
Add #[inline] markers to once_cell methods
Added inline markers to all simple methods under the `once_cell` feature. Relates to #74465 and #105587
This should not block #105587
`IN6ADDR_ANY_INIT` and `IN6ADDR_LOOPBACK_INIT` documentation.
Added documentation for IPv6 Addresses `IN6ADDR_ANY_INIT` also known as `in6addr_any` and `IN6ADDR_LOOPBACK_INIT` also known as `in6addr_loopback` similar to `INADDR_ANY` for IPv4 Addresses.
Replace libstd, libcore, liballoc terminology in docs
Fixes#103551. I changed line comments containing the outdated terms as well.
It would be great if someone with more experience could weigh in on whether these changes introduce ambiguity as suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103551#issuecomment-1291225315.
doc: clearer and more correct Iterator::scan
The `Iterator::scan` documentation seemed a little misleading to my newcomer
eyes, and this tries to address that.
* I found “similar to `fold`” unhelpful because (a) the similarity is only that
they maintain state between iterations, and (b) the _dissimilarity_ is no less
important: one returns a final value and the other an iterator. So this
replaces that with “which, like `fold`, holds internal state, but unlike
`fold`, produces a new iterator.
* I found “the return value from the closure, an `Option`, is yielded by the
iterator” to be downright incorrect, because “yielded by the iterator” means
“returned by the `next` method wrapped in `Some`”, so this implied that `scan`
would convert an input iterator of `T` to an output iterator of `Option<T>`.
So this replaces “yielded by the iterator” with “returned by the `next`
method” and elaborates: “Thus the closure can return `Some(value)` to yield
`value`, or `None` to end the iteration.”
* This also changes the example to illustrate the latter point by returning
`None` to terminate the iteration early based on `state`.
