Formatter::with_options takes self as a mutable reference (`&'a mut
Formatter<'b>`). `'a` and `'b` need to be different lifetimes. Just taking `&'a
mut Formatter<'a>` and trusting in Rust being able to implicitely convert from
`&'a mut Formatter<'b>` if necessary (after all, `'a` must be smaller than `'b`
anyway) fails because `'b` is behind a *mutable* reference. For background on
on this behavior, see https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/subtyping.html#variance.
The idea behind this is to make implementing `fmt::FormattingOptions` (as well
as any future changes to `std::Formatter`) easier.
In theory, this might have a negative performance impact because of the
additional function calls. However, I strongly believe that those will be
inlined anyway, thereby producing assembly code that has comparable performance.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #131304 (float types: move copysign, abs, signum to libcore)
- #132907 (Change intrinsic declarations to new style)
- #132971 (Handle infer vars in anon consts on stable)
- #133003 (Make `CloneToUninit` dyn-compatible)
- #133004 (btree: simplify the backdoor between set and map)
- #133008 (update outdated comment about test-float-parse)
- #133012 (Add test cases for #125918)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
float types: move copysign, abs, signum to libcore
These operations are explicitly specified to act "bitwise", i.e. they just act on the sign bit and do not even quiet signaling NaNs. We also list them as ["non-arithmetic operations"](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/primitive.f32.html#nan-bit-patterns), and all the other non-arithmetic operations are in libcore. There's no reason to expect them to require any sort of runtime support, and from [these experiments](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50145#issuecomment-997301250) it seems like LLVM indeed compiles them in a way that does not require any sort of runtime support.
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api` since this change takes immediate effect on stable.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50145.
improve codegen of fmt_num to delete unreachable panic
it seems LLVM doesn't realize that `curr` is always decremented at least once in either loop formatting characters of the input string by their appropriate radix, and so the later `&buf[curr..]` generates a check for out-of-bounds access and panic. this is unreachable in reality as even for `x == T::zero()` we'll produce at least the character `Self::digit(T::zero())`, yielding at least one character output, and `curr` will always be at least one below `buf.len()`.
adjust `fmt_int` to make this fact more obvious to the compiler, which fortunately (or unfortunately) results in a measurable performance improvement for workloads heavy on formatting integers.
in the program i'd noticed this in, you can see the `cmp $0x80,%rdi; ja 7c` here, which branches to a slice index fail helper:
<img width="660" alt="before" src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/4615790/ac482d54-21f8-494b-9c83-4beadc3ca0ef">
where after this change the function is broadly similar, but smaller, with one fewer registers updated in each pass through the loop in addition the never-taken `cmp/ja` being gone:
<img width="646" alt="after" src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/4615790/1bee1d76-b674-43ec-9b21-4587364563aa">
this represents a ~2-3% difference in runtime in my [admittedly comically i32-formatting-bound](https://github.com/athre0z/disas-bench/blob/master/bench/yaxpeax/src/main.rs#L58-L67) use case (printing x86 instructions, including i32 displacements and immediates) as measured on a ryzen 9 3950x.
the impact on `<impl LowerHex for i8>::fmt` is both more dramatic and less impactful: it continues to have a loop that is evaluated at most twice, though the compiler doesn't know that to unroll it. the generated code there is identical to the impl for `i32`. there, the smaller loop body has less effect on runtime, and removing the never-taken slice bounds check is offset by whatever address recalculation is happening with the `lea/add/neg` at the end of the loop. it behaves about the same before and after.
---
i initially measured slightly better outcomes using `unreachable_unchecked()` here instead, but that was hacking on std and rebuilding with `-Z build-std` on an older rustc (nightly 5b377cece, 2023-06-30). it does not yield better outcomes now, so i see no reason to proceed with that approach at all.
<details>
<summary>initial notes about that, seemingly irrelevant on modern rustc</summary>
i went through a few tries at getting llvm to understand the bounds check isn't necessary, but i should mention the _best_ i'd seen here was actually from the existing `fmt_int` with a diff like
```diff
if x == zero {
// No more digits left to accumulate.
break;
};
}
}
+
+ if curr >= buf.len() {
+ unsafe { core::hint::unreachable_unchecked(); }
+ }
let buf = &buf[curr..];
```
posting a random PR to `rust-lang/rust` to do that without a really really compelling reason seemed a bit absurd, so i tried to work that into something that seems more palatable at a glance. but if you're interested, that certainly produced better (x86_64) code through LLVM. in that case with `buf.iter_mut().rev()` as the iterator, `<impl LowerHex for i8>::fmt` actually unrolls into something like
```
put_char(x & 0xf);
let mut len = 1;
if x > 0xf {
put_char((x >> 4) & 0xf);
len = 2;
}
pad_integral(buf[buf.len() - len..]);
```
it's pretty cool! `<impl LowerHex for i32>::fmt` also was slightly better. that all resulted in closer to an 6% difference in my use case.
</details>
---
i have not looked at formatters other than LowerHex/UpperHex with this change, though i'd be a bit shocked if any were _worse_.
(i have absolutely _no_ idea how you'd regression test this, but that might be just my not knowing what the right tool for that would be in rust-lang/rust. i'm of half a mind that this is small and fiddly enough to not be worth landing lest it quietly regress in the future anyway. but i didn't want to discard the idea without at least offering it upstream here)
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
Refactor some `core::fmt` macros
While looking at the macros in `core::fmt`, find that the macros are not well organized. So I created a patch to fix it.
[`core/src/fmt/num.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/fmt/num.rs)
* `impl_int!` and `impl_uint!` macro are **completly** same. It would be better to combine for readability
* `impl_int!` has a problem that the indenting is not uniform. It has unified into 4 spaces
* `debug` macro in `num` renamed to `impl_Debug`, And it was moved to a position close to the `impl_Display`.
[`core/src/fmt/float.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/fmt/float.rs)
[`core/src/fmt/nofloat.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/fmt/nofloat.rs)
* `floating` macro now receive multiple idents at once. It makes the code cleaner.
* Modified the panic message more clearly in fallback function of `cfg(no_fp_fmt_parse)`
Document futility of printing temporary pointers
In the user forum I've seen a few people trying to understand how borrowing and moves are implemented by peppering their code with printing of `{:p}` of references to variables and expressions. This is a bad idea. It gives misleading and confusing results, because of autoderef magic, printing pointers of temporaries on the stack, and/or causes LLVM to optimize code differently when values had their address exposed.
Implement `debug_more_non_exhaustive`
This implements the ACP at https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/248, adding `.finish_non_exhaustive()` for `DebugTuple`, `DebugSet`, `DebugList`, and `DebugMap`.
Also used this as an opportunity to make some documentation and tests more readable by using raw strings instead of escaped quotes.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127942
