Add #[must_use] to expensive computations
The unifying theme for this commit is weak, admittedly. I put together a list of "expensive" functions when I originally proposed this whole effort, but nobody's cared about that criterion. Still, it's a decent way to bite off a not-too-big chunk of work.
Given the grab bag nature of this commit, the messages I used vary quite a bit. I'm open to wording changes.
For some reason clippy flagged four `BTreeSet` methods but didn't say boo about equivalent ones on `HashSet`. I stared at them for a while but I can't figure out the difference so I added the `HashSet` ones in.
```rust
// Flagged by clippy.
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Difference<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T>
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Intersection<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Union<'a, T>;
// Ignored by clippy, but not by me.
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Difference<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T, S>
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Intersection<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Union<'a, T, S>;
```
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
track_caller for slice length assertions
`clone_from_slice` was missing `#[track_caller]`, and its assert did not report a useful location.
These are small generic methods, so hopefully track_caller gets inlined into nothingness, but it may be worth running a benchmark on this.
Make `core::slice::from_raw_parts[_mut]` const
Responses to #90012 seem to allow ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`` to decide on use of `const_eval_select`, so we can make `core::slice::from_raw_parts[_mut]` const :)
---
This PR marks the following APIs as const:
```rust
// core::slice
pub const unsafe fn from_raw_parts<'a, T>(data: *const T, len: usize) -> &'a [T];
pub const unsafe fn from_raw_parts_mut<'a, T>(data: *mut T, len: usize) -> &'a mut [T];
```
---
Resolves#90011
r? ``@oli-obk``
Make most std::ops traits const on numeric types
This PR makes existing implementations of `std::ops` traits (`Add`, `Sub`, etc) [`impl const`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67792) where possible.
This affects:
- All numeric primitives (`u*`, `i*`, `f*`)
- `NonZero*`
- `Wrapping`
This is under the `rustc_const_unstable` feature `const_ops`.
I will write tests once I know what can and can't be kept for the final version of this PR.
Since this is my first PR to rustc (and hopefully one of many), please give me feedback on how to better handle the PR process wherever possible. Thanks
[Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Const.20std.3A.3Aops.20traits.20PR)
Replace some operators in libcore with their short-circuiting equivalents
In libcore there are a few occurrences of bitwise operators used in boolean expressions instead of their short-circuiting equivalents. This makes it harder to perform some kinds of source code analysis over libcore, for example [MC/DC] code coverage (a requirement in safety-critical environments).
This PR aims to remove as many bitwise operators in boolean expressions from libcore as possible, without any performance regression and without other changes. This means not all bitwise operators are removed, only the ones that don't have any difference with their short-circuiting counterparts. This already simplifies achieving MC/DC coverage, and the other functions can be changed in future PRs.
The PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit, and each commit has the resulting assembly in the message.
## Checked integer methods
These methods recently switched to bitwise operators in PRs https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89459 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89351. I confirmed bitwise operators are needed in most of the functions, except these two:
* `{integer}::checked_div` ([Godbolt link (nightly)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/17efh5jPc))
* `{integer}::checked_rem` ([Godbolt link (nightly)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/85qGWc94K))
`@tspiteri` already mentioned this was the case in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89459#issuecomment-932728384, but opted to also switch those two to bitwise operators for consistency. As that makes MC/DC analysis harder this PR proposes switching those two back to short-circuiting operators.
## `{unsigned_ints}::carrying_add`
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/vG9vx8x48)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces the exact same assembly when optimizations are enabled, so switching to the short-circuiting operator shouldn't have any impact.
## `{unsigned_ints}::borrowing_sub`
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/asEfKaGE4)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces the exact same assembly when optimizations are enabled, so switching to the short-circuiting operator shouldn't have any impact.
## String UTF-8 validation
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/a4rEbTvvx)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces practically the same assembly, with the two operands for the "or" swapped:
```asm
; Old
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
test rax, r9
je .LBB0_7
; New
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
test rax, r8
je .LBB0_7
```
[MC/DC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_condition/decision_coverage
Remove extra lines in examples for `Duration::try_from_secs_*`
None of the other examples have extra lines below the `#![feature(...)]` statements, so I thought it appropriate that these examples shouldn't either.
Clean up special function const checks
Mark them as const and `#[rustc_do_not_const_check]` instead of hard-coding them in const-eval checks.
r? `@oli-obk`
`@rustbot` label A-const-eval T-compiler
Using short-circuit operators makes it easier to perform some kinds of
source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
xor eax, eax
test esi, esi
je .LBB0_1
cmp edi, -2147483648
jne .LBB0_4
cmp esi, -1
jne .LBB0_4
ret
.LBB0_1:
ret
.LBB0_4:
mov eax, edi
cdq
idiv esi
mov eax, 1
ret
```
Using short-circuit operators makes it easier to perform some kinds of
source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
xor eax, eax
test esi, esi
je .LBB0_1
cmp edi, -2147483648
jne .LBB0_4
cmp esi, -1
jne .LBB0_4
ret
.LBB0_1:
ret
.LBB0_4:
mov eax, edi
cdq
idiv esi
mov edx, eax
mov eax, 1
ret
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is
equivalent between the old and new versions.
Old assembly of that condition:
```
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
test rax, r9
je .LBB0_7
```
New assembly of that condition:
```
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
test rax, r8
je .LBB0_7
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
mov eax, edi
add dl, -1
sbb eax, esi
setb dl
ret
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
mov eax, edi
add dl, -1
adc eax, esi
setb dl
ret
```
Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using Fn trait instead of FnMut.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails
to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using
a mutable reference as an input argument.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we
can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using Fn trait instead of FnMut.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
Make RSplit<T, P>: Clone not require T: Clone
This addresses a TODO comment. The behavior of `#[derive(Clone)]` *does* result in a `T: Clone` requirement. Playground example:
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a8b1a9581ff8893baf401d624a53d35b
Add a manual `Clone` implementation, mirroring `Split` and `SplitInclusive`.
`(R)?SplitN(Mut)?` don't have any `Clone` implementations, but I'll leave that for its own pull request.
Implement split_array and split_array_mut
This implements `[T]::split_array::<const N>() -> (&[T; N], &[T])` and `[T; N]::split_array::<const M>() -> (&[T; M], &[T])` and their mutable equivalents. These are another few “missing” array implementations now that const generics are a thing, similar to #74373, #75026, etc. Fixes#74674.
This implements `[T; N]::split_array` returning an array and a slice. Ultimately, this is probably not what we want, we would want the second return value to be an array of length N-M, which will likely be possible with future const generics enhancements. We need to implement the array method now though, to immediately shadow the slice method. This way, when the slice methods get stabilized, calling them on an array will not be automatic through coercion, so we won't have trouble stabilizing the array methods later (cf. into_iter debacle).
An unchecked version of `[T]::split_array` could also be added as in #76014. This would not be needed for `[T; N]::split_array` as that can be compile-time checked. Edit: actually, since split_at_unchecked is internal-only it could be changed to be split_array-only.
My change to use `Type::def_id()` (formerly `Type::def_id_full()`) in
more places caused some docs to show up that used to be missed by
rustdoc. Those docs contained unescaped square brackets, which triggered
linkcheck errors. This commit escapes the square brackets and adds this
particular instance to the linkcheck exception list.
Stabilize feature `saturating_div` for rust 1.58.0
The tracking issue is #89381
This seems like a reasonable simple change(?). The feature `saturating_div` was added as part of the ongoing effort to implement a `Saturating` integer type (see #87921). The implementation has been discussed [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87921#issuecomment-899357720) and [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87921#discussion_r691888556). It extends the list of saturating operations on integer types (like `saturating_add`, `saturating_sub`, `saturating_mul`, ...) by the function `fn saturating_div(self, rhs: Self) -> Self`.
The stabilization of the feature `saturating_int_impl` (for the `Saturating` type) needs to have this stabilized first.
Closes#89381
This addresses a TODO comment. The behavior of #[derive(Clone)]
*does* result in a T: Clone requirement.
Add a manual Clone implementation, matching Split and SplitInclusive.
Make more `From` impls `const` (libcore)
Adding `const` to `From` implementations in the core. `rustc_const_unstable` attribute is not added to unstable implementations.
Tracking issue: #88674
<details>
<summary>Done</summary><div>
- `T` from `T`
- `T` from `!`
- `Option<T>` from `T`
- `Option<&T>` from `&Option<T>`
- `Option<&mut T>` from `&mut Option<T>`
- `Cell<T>` from `T`
- `RefCell<T>` from `T`
- `UnsafeCell<T>` from `T`
- `OnceCell<T>` from `T`
- `Poll<T>` from `T`
- `u32` from `char`
- `u64` from `char`
- `u128` from `char`
- `char` from `u8`
- `AtomicBool` from `bool`
- `AtomicPtr<T>` from `*mut T`
- `AtomicI(bits)` from `i(bits)`
- `AtomicU(bits)` from `u(bits)`
- `i(bits)` from `NonZeroI(bits)`
- `u(bits)` from `NonZeroU(bits)`
- `NonNull<T>` from `Unique<T>`
- `NonNull<T>` from `&T`
- `NonNull<T>` from `&mut T`
- `Unique<T>` from `&mut T`
- `Infallible` from `!`
- `TryIntError` from `!`
- `TryIntError` from `Infallible`
- `TryFromSliceError` from `Infallible`
- `FromResidual for Option<T>`
</div></details>
<details>
<summary>Remaining</summary><dev>
- `NonZero` from `NonZero`
These can't be made const at this time because these use Into::into.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/convert/num.rs#L393
- `std`, `alloc`
There may still be many implementations that can be made `const`.
</div></details>
remove unnecessary bound on Zip specialization impl
I originally added this bound in an attempt to make the specialization
sound for owning iterators but it was never correct here and the correct
and [already implemented](497ee321af/library/alloc/src/vec/into_iter.rs (L220-L232)) solution is is to place it on the IntoIter
implementation.
Automatic exponential formatting in Debug
Context: See [this comment from the libs team](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2729#issuecomment-853454204)
---
Makes `"{:?}"` switch to exponential for floats based on magnitude. The libs team suggested exploring this idea in the discussion thread for RFC rust-lang/rfcs#2729. (**note:** this is **not** an implementation of the RFC; it is an implementation of one of the alternatives)
Thresholds chosen were 1e-4 and 1e16. Justification described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2729#issuecomment-864482954).
**This will require a crater run.**
---
As mentioned in the commit message of 8731d4dfb4, this behavior will not apply when a precision is supplied, because I wanted to preserve the following existing and useful behavior of `{:.PREC?}` (which recursively applies `{:.PREC}` to floats in a struct):
```rust
assert_eq!(
format!("{:.2?}", [100.0, 0.000004]),
"[100.00, 0.00]",
)
```
I looked around and am not sure where there are any tests that actually use this in the test suite, though?
All things considered, I'm surprised that this change did not seem to break even a single existing test in `x.py test --stage 2`. (even when I tried a smaller threshold of 1e6)
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #89766 (RustWrapper: adapt for an LLVM API change)
- #89867 (Fix macro_rules! duplication when reexported in the same module)
- #89941 (removing TLS support in x86_64-unknown-none-hermitkernel)
- #89956 (Suggest a case insensitive match name regardless of levenshtein distance)
- #89988 (Do not promote values with const drop that need to be dropped)
- #89997 (Add test for issue #84957 - `str.as_bytes()` in a `const` expression)
- #90002 (⬆️ rust-analyzer)
- #90034 (Tiny tweak to Iterator::unzip() doc comment example.)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Revert "Auto merge of #89709 - clemenswasser:apply_clippy_suggestions…
…_2, r=petrochenkov"
The PR had some unforseen perf regressions that are not as easy to find.
Revert the PR for now.
This reverts commit 6ae8912a3e, reversing
changes made to 86d6d2b738.
It's easier to figure out what it's doing and which output
elements map to which input ones if the matrix we are dealing
with is rectangular 2x3 rather than square 2x2.
Remove a mention to `copy_from_slice` from `clone_from_slice` doc
Fixes#84736
I think removing it would be the best but I'm happy to clarify it instead if someone would like.
Add `#[repr(i8)]` to `Ordering`
Followup to #89491 to allow `Ordering` to auto-derive `AsRepr` once the proposal to add `AsRepr` (#81642) lands.
cc ``@joshtriplett``
updating docs to mention usage of AtomicBool
Mouse mentioned we should point out that atomic bool is used by the std lib these days. ( https://github.com/m-ou-se/getrandom/pull/1 )
Stabilize `unreachable_unchecked` as `const fn`
Closes#53188
This PR stabilizes `core::hint::unreachable_unchecked` as `const fn`. MIRI is able to detect when this method is called. Stabilization was delayed until `const_panic` was stabilized so as to avoid users calling this method in its place (thus resulting in runtime UB). With #89508, that is no longer an issue.
````@rustbot```` label +A-const-eval +A-const-fn +T-lang +S-blocked
(not sure why it's T-lang, but that's what the tracking issue is)
The PR had some unforseen perf regressions that are not as easy to find.
Revert the PR for now.
This reverts commit 6ae8912a3e, reversing
changes made to 86d6d2b738.
Add `const_eval_select` intrinsic
Adds an intrinsic that calls a given function when evaluated at compiler time, but generates a call to another function when called at runtime.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/issues/7 for previous discussion.
r? `@oli-obk.`
The unifying theme for this commit is weak, admittedly. I put together a
list of "expensive" functions when I originally proposed this whole
effort, but nobody's cared about that criterion. Still, it's a decent
way to bite off a not-too-big chunk of work.
Given the grab bag nature of this commit, the messages I used vary quite
a bit.
fix minor spelling error in Poll::ready docs
Fixes minor spelling error in the proposed `Poll::ready` docs. Not that my opinion matters, but +1 on the original PR (#89651), it reads much nicer to me than the `ready!` macro.
Add #[must_use] to non-mutating verb methods
These are methods that could be misconstrued to mutate their input, similar to #89694. I gave each one a different custom message.
I wrote that `upgrade` and `downgrade` don't modify the input pointers. Logically they don't, but technically they do...
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
Add #[must_use] to From::from and Into::into
Risk of churn: **High**
Magic 8-Ball says: **Outlook not so good**
I figured I'd put this out there. If we don't do it now maybe we save it for a rainy day.
Parent issue: #89692
r? `@joshtriplett`
Speedup int log10 branchless
This is achieved with a branchless bit-twiddling implementation of the case x < 100_000, and using this as building block.
Benchmark on an Intel i7-8700K (Coffee Lake):
```
name old ns/iter new ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
num::int_log::u8_log10_predictable 165 169 4 2.42% x 0.98
num::int_log::u8_log10_random 438 423 -15 -3.42% x 1.04
num::int_log::u8_log10_random_small 438 423 -15 -3.42% x 1.04
num::int_log::u16_log10_predictable 633 417 -216 -34.12% x 1.52
num::int_log::u16_log10_random 908 471 -437 -48.13% x 1.93
num::int_log::u16_log10_random_small 945 471 -474 -50.16% x 2.01
num::int_log::u32_log10_predictable 1,496 1,340 -156 -10.43% x 1.12
num::int_log::u32_log10_random 1,076 873 -203 -18.87% x 1.23
num::int_log::u32_log10_random_small 1,145 874 -271 -23.67% x 1.31
num::int_log::u64_log10_predictable 4,005 3,171 -834 -20.82% x 1.26
num::int_log::u64_log10_random 1,247 1,021 -226 -18.12% x 1.22
num::int_log::u64_log10_random_small 1,265 921 -344 -27.19% x 1.37
num::int_log::u128_log10_predictable 39,667 39,579 -88 -0.22% x 1.00
num::int_log::u128_log10_random 6,456 6,696 240 3.72% x 0.96
num::int_log::u128_log10_random_small 4,108 3,903 -205 -4.99% x 1.05
```
Benchmark on an M1 Mac Mini:
```
name old ns/iter new ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
num::int_log::u8_log10_predictable 143 130 -13 -9.09% x 1.10
num::int_log::u8_log10_random 375 325 -50 -13.33% x 1.15
num::int_log::u8_log10_random_small 376 325 -51 -13.56% x 1.16
num::int_log::u16_log10_predictable 500 322 -178 -35.60% x 1.55
num::int_log::u16_log10_random 794 405 -389 -48.99% x 1.96
num::int_log::u16_log10_random_small 1,035 405 -630 -60.87% x 2.56
num::int_log::u32_log10_predictable 1,144 894 -250 -21.85% x 1.28
num::int_log::u32_log10_random 832 786 -46 -5.53% x 1.06
num::int_log::u32_log10_random_small 832 787 -45 -5.41% x 1.06
num::int_log::u64_log10_predictable 2,681 2,057 -624 -23.27% x 1.30
num::int_log::u64_log10_random 1,015 806 -209 -20.59% x 1.26
num::int_log::u64_log10_random_small 1,004 795 -209 -20.82% x 1.26
num::int_log::u128_log10_predictable 56,825 56,526 -299 -0.53% x 1.01
num::int_log::u128_log10_random 9,056 8,861 -195 -2.15% x 1.02
num::int_log::u128_log10_random_small 1,528 1,527 -1 -0.07% x 1.00
```
The 128 bit case remains ridiculously slow because llvm fails to optimize division by a constant 128-bit value to multiplications. This could be worked around but it seems preferable to fix this in llvm.
From u32 up, table lookup (like suggested [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70887#issuecomment-881099813)) is still faster, but requires a hardware `leading_zeros` to be viable, and might clog up the cache.
Fix ICE when compiling nightly std/rustc on beta compiler
Fix#89775#89479 renames a lot of diagnostic items, but it happens that the beta compiler assumes that there must be DefId with `rustc_diagnostic_item = "send_trait"`, causing an ICE when compiling stage 0 std or stage 1 compiler. So gate it with `cfg(bootstrap)`.
The unwrap is also removed, so that existence of the diagnostic item is not required. I ripgreped the code base and this seems the only place where `unwrap` is called on the return value of `get_diagnostic_item`.
Add `Poll::ready` and revert stabilization of `task::ready!`
This PR adds an inherent `ready` method to `Poll` that can be used with the `?` operator as an alternative to the `task::ready!` macro:
```rust
let val = ready!(fut.poll(cx));
let val = fut.poll(cx).ready()?;
```
I think this form is a nice, non-breaking middle ground between changing the `impl Try for Poll`, and adding a separate macro. It looks better than `ready!` in my opinion, and it composes well:
```rust
let elem = ready!(fut.poll(cx)).pop().unwrap();
let elem = fut.poll(cx).ready()?.pop().unwrap();
```
The planned stabilization of `ready!` in 1.56 has been reverted because I think this alternate approach is worth considering.
r? rust-lang/libs
