Describe and use CStr literals in CStr and CString docs
Mention CStr literals in the description of both types, and use them in some of the code samples for CStr. This is intended to make C string literals more discoverable.
Additionally, I don't think the orange "This example is not tested" warnings are very encouraging, so I have made the examples on `CStr` build.
String.truncate comment microfix (greater or equal)
String.truncate calls Vec.truncate, in turn, and that states "is greater or equal to". Beside common sense.
deref patterns: impl `DerefPure` for more std types
Context: [deref patterns](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87121). The requirements of `DerefPure` aren't precise yet, but these types unambiguously satisfy them.
Interestingly, a hypothetical `impl DerefMut for Cow` that does a `Clone` would *not* be eligible for `DerefPure` if we allow mixing deref patterns with normal patterns. If the following is exhaustive then the `DerefMut` would cause UB:
```rust
match &mut Cow::Borrowed(&()) {
Cow::Owned(_) => ..., // Doesn't match
deref!(_x) if false => ..., // Causes the variant to switch to `Owned`
Cow::Borrowed(_) => ..., // Doesn't match
// We reach unreachable
}
```
Document overrides of `clone_from()` in core/std
As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96979#discussion_r1379502413
Specifically, when an override doesn't just forward to an inner type, document the behavior and that it's preferred over simply assigning a clone of source. Also, change instances where the second parameter is "other" to "source".
I reused some of the wording over and over for similar impls, but I'm not sure that the wording is actually *good*. Would appreciate feedback about that.
Also, now some of these seem to provide pretty specific guarantees about behavior (e.g. will reuse the exact same allocation iff the len is the same), but I was basing it off of the docs for [`Box::clone_from`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.75.0/std/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.clone_from-1) - I'm not sure if providing those strong guarantees is actually good or not.
Avoid more NonNull-raw-NonNull roundtrips in Vec
r? the8472
The standard library in general has a lot of these round-trips from niched types to their raw innards and back. Such round-trips have overhead in debug builds since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120594. I removed some such round-trips in that initial PR and I've been meaning to come back and hunt down more such examples (this is the last item on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120848).
Do not allocate for ZST ThinBox (attempt 2 using const_allocate)
There's PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123184 which avoids allocation for ZST ThinBox.
That PR has an issue with unsoundness with padding in `MaybeUninit` (see comments in that PR). Also that PR relies on `Freeze` trait.
This PR is much simpler implementation which does not have this problem, but it uses `const_allocate` feature.
`@oli-obk` suggested that `const_allocate` should not be used for that feature. But I like how easy it to do this feature with `const_allocate`. Maybe it's OK to use `const_allocate` while `ThinBox` is unstable? Or, well, we can abandon this PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
There's PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123184
which avoids allocation for ZST ThinBox.
That PR has an issue with unsoundness with misuse of `MaybeUninit`
(see comments in that PR).
This PR is much simpler implementation which does not have this
problem, but it uses `const_allocate` feature.
Support running library tests in Miri
This adds a new bootstrap subcommand `./x.py miri` which can test libraries in Miri. This is in preparation for eventually doing that as part of bors CI, but this PR only adds the infrastructure, and doesn't enable it yet.
`@rust-lang/bootstrap` should this be `x.py test --miri library/core` or `x.py miri library/core`? The flag has the advantage that we don't have to copy all the arguments from `Subcommand::Test`. It has the disadvantage that most test steps just ignore `--miri` and still run tests the regular way. For clippy you went the route of making it a separate subcommand. ~~I went with a flag now as that seemed easier, but I can change this.~~ I made it a new subcommand. Note however that the regular cargo invocation would be `cargo miri test ...`, so `x.py` is still going to be different in that the `test` is omitted. That said, we could also make it `./x.py miri-test` to make that difference smaller -- that's in fact more consistent with the internal name of the command when bootstrap invokes cargo.
`@rust-lang/libs` ~~unfortunately this PR does some unholy things to the `lib.rs` files of our library crates.~~
`@m-ou-se` found a way that entirely avoids library-level hacks, except for some new small `lib.miri.rs` files that hopefully you will never have to touch. There's a new hack in cargo-miri but there it is in good company...
Remove len argument from RawVec::reserve_for_push
Removes `RawVec::reserve_for_push`'s `len` argument since it's always the same as capacity.
Also makes `Vec::insert` use `RawVec::reserve_for_push`.
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
Eliminate `UbChecks` for non-standard libraries
The purpose of this PR is to allow other passes to treat `UbChecks` as constants in MIR for optimization after #122629.
r? RalfJung
Implement `Vec::pop_if`
This PR adds `Vec::pop_if` to the public API, behind the `vec_pop_if` feature.
```rust
impl<T> Vec<T> {
pub fn pop_if<F>(&mut self, f: F) -> Option<T>
where F: FnOnce(&mut T) -> bool;
}
```
Tracking issue: #122741
## Open questions
- [ ] Should the first unit test be split up?
- [ ] I don't see any guidance on ordering of methods in impl blocks, should I move the method elsewhere?
