make raw_eq precondition more restrictive
Specifically, don't allow comparing pointers that way. Comparing pointers is subtle because you have to talk about what happens to the provenance.
This matches what [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=9eb1dfb8a61b5a2d4a7cee43df2717af), and all existing users are fine with this.
If raw_eq on pointers is ever desired, we can adjust the intrinsic spec and Miri implementation as needed, but for now that seems just unnecessary. Also, this is a const intrinsic, and in const, comparing pointers this way is *not possible* -- so if we allow the intrinsic to compare pointers in general, we need to impose an extra restrictions saying that in const-context, pointers are *not* okay.
Reoptimize layout array
This way it's one check instead of two, so hopefully (cc #99117) it'll be simpler for rustc perf too 🤞
Quick demonstration:
```rust
pub fn demo(n: usize) -> Option<Layout> {
Layout::array::<i32>(n).ok()
}
```
Nightly: <https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=release&edition=2021&gist=e97bf33508aa03f38968101cdeb5322d>
```nasm
mov rax, rdi
mov ecx, 4
mul rcx
seto cl
movabs rdx, 9223372036854775805
xor esi, esi
cmp rax, rdx
setb sil
shl rsi, 2
xor edx, edx
test cl, cl
cmove rdx, rsi
ret
```
This PR (note no `mul`, in addition to being much shorter):
```nasm
xor edx, edx
lea rax, [4*rcx]
shr rcx, 61
sete dl
shl rdx, 2
ret
```
This is built atop `@CAD97` 's #99136; the new changes are cb8aba66ef6a0e17f08a0574e4820653e31b45a0.
I added a bunch more tests for `Layout::from_size_align` and `Layout::array` too.
Inline CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked::rt_impl
Currently `CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked::rt_impl` is not being inlined. The following function:
```rust
pub unsafe fn from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked(bytes: &[u8]) {
CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked(bytes);
}
```
Outputs the following assembly on current nightly
```asm
example::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked:
jmp qword ptr [rip + _ZN4core3ffi5c_str4CStr29from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked7rt_impl17h026f29f3d6a41333E@GOTPCREL]
```
Meanwhile on beta this provides the following assembly:
```asm
example::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked:
ret
```
This pull request adds `#[inline]` annotation to`rt_impl` to fix a code generation regression for `CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked`.
docs: remove repetition in `is_numeric` function docs
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99628 we introduce new docs for the `is_numeric` function, and this is a follow-up PR that removes some unnecessary repetition that may be introduced by some rebasing.
`@rustbot` r? `@joshtriplett`
Add back Send and Sync impls on ChunksMut iterators
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100014
These were accidentally removed in #94247 because the representation was changed from `&mut [T]` to `*mut T`, which has `!Send + !Sync`.
do not claim that transmute is like memcpy
Saying transmute is like memcpy is not a well-formed statement, since memcpy is by-ref whereas transmute is by-val. The by-val nature of transmute inherently means that padding is lost along the way. (This is not specific to transmute, this is how all by-value operations work.) So adjust the docs to clarify this aspect.
Cc `@workingjubilee`
mem::uninitialized: mitigate many incorrect uses of this function
Alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98966: fill memory with `0x01` rather than leaving it uninit. This is definitely bitewise valid for all `bool` and nonnull types, and also those `Option<&T>` that we started putting `noundef` on. However it is still invalid for `char` and some enums, and on references the `dereferenceable` attribute is still violated, so the generated LLVM IR still has UB -- but in fewer cases, and `dereferenceable` is hopefully less likely to cause problems than clearly incorrect range annotations.
This can make using `mem::uninitialized` a lot slower, but that function has been deprecated for years and we keep telling everyone to move to `MaybeUninit` because it is basically impossible to use `mem::uninitialized` correctly. For the cases where that hasn't helped (and all the old code out there that nobody will ever update), we can at least mitigate the effect of using this API. Note that this is *not* in any way a stable guarantee -- it is still UB to call `mem::uninitialized::<bool>()`, and Miri will call it out as such.
This is somewhat similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87032, which proposed to make `uninitialized` return a buffer filled with 0x00. However
- That PR also proposed to reduce the situations in which we panic, which I don't think we should do at this time.
- The 0x01 bit pattern means that nonnull requirements are satisfied, which (due to references) is the most common validity invariant.
`@5225225` I hope I am using `cfg(sanitize)` the right way; I was not sure for which ones to test here.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87675
This initial implementation handles transmutations between types with specified layouts, except when references are involved.
Co-authored-by: Igor null <m1el.2027@gmail.com>
Fix slice::ChunksMut aliasing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94231, details in that issue.
cc `@RalfJung`
This isn't done just yet, all the safety comments are placeholders. But otherwise, it seems to work.
I don't really like this approach though. There's a lot of unsafe code where there wasn't before, but as far as I can tell the only other way to uphold the aliasing requirement imposed by `__iterator_get_unchecked` is to use raw slices, which I think require the same amount of unsafe code. All that would do is tie the `len` and `ptr` fields together.
Oh I just looked and I'm pretty sure that `ChunksExactMut`, `RChunksMut`, and `RChunksExactMut` also need to be patched. Even more reason to put up a draft.
interpret, ptr_offset_from: refactor and test too-far-apart check
We didn't have any tests for the "too far apart" message, and indeed that check mostly relied on the in-bounds check and was otherwise probably not entirely correct... so I rewrote that check, and it is before the in-bounds check so we can test it separately.
Constify a few `(Partial)Ord` impls
Only a few `impl`s are constified for now, as #92257 has not landed in the bootstrap compiler yet and quite a few impls would need that fix.
This unblocks #92228, which unblocks marking iterator methods as `default_method_body_is_const`.
