Stabilize slice_ptr_range.
This has been unstable for almost a year now. Time to stabilize?
Closes#65807.
@rustbot modify labels: +T-libs +A-raw-pointers +A-slice +needs-fcp
Refactor memchr to allow optimization
Closes#75659
The implementation already uses naive search if the slice if short enough, but the case is complicated enough to not be optimized away. This PR refactors memchr so that it exists early when the slice is short enough.
Codegen-wise, as shown in #75659, memchr was not inlined previously so the only way I could find to test this is to check if there is no memchr call. Let me know if there is a more robust solution here.
It's possible for method resolution to pick this method over a lower
priority stable method, causing compilation errors. Since this method
is permanently unstable, give it a name that is very unlikely to be used
in user code.
Make [].as_[mut_]ptr_range() (unstably) const.
Gated behind `const_ptr_offset`, as suggested by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65807#issuecomment-697229404
This also marks `[].as_mut_ptr()` as const, because it's used by `as_mut_ptr_range`. I gated it behind the same feature, because I figured it's not worth adding a separate tracking issue for const `as_mut_ptr`.
Add array_windows fn
This mimicks the functionality added by array_chunks, and implements a const-generic form of
`windows`. It makes egregious use of `unsafe`, but by necessity because the array must be
re-interpreted as a slice of arrays, and unlike array_chunks this cannot be done by casting the
original array once, since each time the index is advanced it needs to move one element, not
`N`.
I'm planning on adding more tests, but this should be good enough as a premise for the functionality.
Notably: should there be more functions overwritten for the iterator implementation/in general?
~~I've marked the issue as #74985 as there is no corresponding exact issue for `array_windows`, but it's based of off `array_chunks`.~~
Edit: See Issue #75027 created by @lcnr for tracking issue
~~Do not merge until I add more tests, please.~~
r? @lcnr
Updated issue to #75027
Update to rm oob access
And hopefully fix docs as well
Fixed naming conflict in test
Fix test which used 1-indexing
Nth starts from 0, woops
Fix a bunch of off by 1 errors
See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=757b311987e3fae1ca47122969acda5a
Add even more off by 1 errors
And also write `next` and `next_back` in terms of `nth` and `nth_back`.
Run fmt
Fix forgetting to change fn name in test
add nth_back test & document unsafe
Remove as_ref().unwrap()
Documented occurrences of unsafe, noting what invariants are maintained
Add `slice::array_chunks_mut`
This follows `array_chunks` from #74373 with a mutable version, `array_chunks_mut`. The implementation is identical apart from mutability. The new tests are adaptations of the `chunks_exact_mut` tests, plus an inference test like the one for `array_chunks`.
I reused the unstable feature `array_chunks` and tracking issue #74985, but I can separate that if desired.
r? `@withoutboats`
cc `@lcnr`
Indent a note to make folding work nicer
Sublime Text folds code based on indentation. It maybe an unnecessary change, but does it look nicer after that ?
rustdoc: do not use plain summary for trait impls
Fixes#38386.
Fixes#48332.
Fixes#49430.
Fixes#62741.
Fixes#73474.
Unfortunately this is not quite ready to go because the newly-working links trigger a bunch of linkcheck failures. The failures are tough to fix because the links are resolved relative to the implementor, which could be anywhere in the module hierarchy.
(In the current docs, these links end up rendering as uninterpreted markdown syntax, so I don't think these failures are any worse than the status quo. It might be acceptable to just add them to the linkchecker whitelist.)
Ideally this could be fixed with intra-doc links ~~but it isn't working for me: I am currently investigating if it's possible to solve it this way.~~ Opened #73829.
EDIT: This is now ready!
Get rid of bounds check in slice::chunks_exact() and related function…
…s during construction
LLVM can't figure out in
let rem = self.len() % chunk_size;
let len = self.len() - rem;
let (fst, snd) = self.split_at(len);
and
let rem = self.len() % chunk_size;
let (fst, snd) = self.split_at(rem);
that the index passed to split_at() is smaller than the slice length and
adds a bounds check plus panic for it.
Apart from removing the overhead of the bounds check this also allows
LLVM to optimize code around the ChunksExact iterator better.
LLVM can't figure out in
let rem = self.len() % chunk_size;
let len = self.len() - rem;
let (fst, snd) = self.split_at(len);
and
let rem = self.len() % chunk_size;
let (fst, snd) = self.split_at(rem);
that the index passed to split_at() is smaller than the slice length and
adds a bounds check plus panic for it.
Apart from removing the overhead of the bounds check this also allows
LLVM to optimize code around the ChunksExact iterator better.
These are unsafe variants of the non-unchecked functions and don't do
any bounds checking.
For the time being these are not public and only a preparation for the
following commit. Making it public and stabilization can follow later
and be discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76014 .
`alloc::slice` uses `core::slice` functions, documentation are copied
from there and the links as well without resolution. `crate::ptr...`
cannot be resolved in `alloc::slice`, but `ptr` itself is imported in
both `alloc::slice` and `core::slice`, so we used that instead.
