[fuchsia] Add implementation for `current_exe`
This implementation returns a best attempt at the current exe path. On
fuchsia, fdio will always use `argv[0]` as the process name and if it is
not set then an error will be returned. Because this is not guaranteed
to be the case, this implementation returns an error if `argv` does not
contain any elements.
remove_dir_all_recursive: treat ELOOP the same as ENOTDIR
On older Linux kernels (I tested on 4.4, corresponding to Ubuntu 16.04), opening a symlink using `O_DIRECTORY | O_NOFOLLOW` returns `ELOOP` instead of `ENOTDIR`. We should handle it the same, since a symlink is still not a directory and needs to be `unlink`ed.
Use sys::unix::locks::futex* on wasm+atomics.
This removes the wasm-specific lock implementations and instead re-uses the implementations from sys::unix.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93740
cc ``@alexcrichton``
Improve AddrParseError description
The existing description was incorrect for socket addresses, and misleading: users would see “invalid IP address syntax” and suppose they were supposed to provide an IP address rather than a socket address.
I contemplated making it two variants (IP, socket), but realised we can do still better for the IPv4 and IPv6 types, so here it is as six.
I contemplated more precise error descriptions (e.g. “invalid IPv6 socket address syntax: expected a decimal scope ID after %”), but that’s a more invasive change, and probably not worthwhile anyway.
This implementation returns a best attempt at the current exe path. On
fuchsia, fdio will always use `argv[0]` as the process name and if it is
not set then an error will be returned. Because this is not guaranteed
to be the case, this implementation returns an error if `argv` does not
contain any elements.
`alloc`: make `vec!` unavailable under `no_global_oom_handling`
`alloc`: make `vec!` unavailable under `no_global_oom_handling`
The `vec!` macro has 3 rules, but two are not usable under
`no_global_oom_handling` builds of the standard library
(even with a zero size):
```rust
let _ = vec![42]; // Error: requires `exchange_malloc` lang_item.
let _ = vec![42; 0]; // Error: cannot find function `from_elem`.
```
Thus those two rules should not be available to begin with.
The remaining one, with an empty matcher, is just a shorthand for
`new()` and may not make as much sense to have alone, since the
idea behind `vec!` is to enable `Vec`s to be defined with the same
syntax as array expressions. Furthermore, the documentation can be
confusing since it shows the other rules.
Thus perhaps it is better and simpler to disable `vec!` entirely
under `no_global_oom_handling` environments, and let users call
`new()` instead:
```rust
let _: Vec<i32> = vec![];
let _: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
```
Notwithstanding this, a `try_vec!` macro would be useful, such as
the one introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95051.
If the shorthand for `new()` is deemed worth keeping on its own,
then it may be interesting to have a separate `vec!` macro with
a single rule and different, simpler documentation.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
The existing description was incorrect for socket addresses, and
misleading: users would see “invalid IP address syntax” and suppose they
were supposed to provide an IP address rather than a socket address.
I contemplated making it two variants (IP, socket), but realised we can
do still better for the IPv4 and IPv6 types, so here it is as six.
I contemplated more precise error descriptions (e.g. “invalid IPv6
socket address syntax: expected a decimal scope ID after %”), but that’s
a more invasive change, and probably not worthwhile anyway.
Add slice::remainder
This adds a remainder function to the Slice iterator, so that a caller can access unused
elements if iteration stops.
Addresses #91733
Use a single ReentrantMutex implementation on all platforms.
This replaces all platform specific ReentrantMutex implementations by the one I added in #95727 for Linux, since that one does not depend on any platform specific details.
r? `@Amanieu`
fix error handling for pthread_sigmask(3)
Errors from `pthread_sigmask(3)` were handled using `cvt()`, which expects a return value of `-1` on error and uses `errno`.
However, `pthread_sigmask(3)` returns `0` on success and an error number otherwise.
Fix it by replacing `cvt()` with `cvt_nz()`.
Speed up Vec::clear().
Currently it just calls `truncate(0)`. `truncate()` is (a) not marked as
`#[inline]`, and (b) more general than needed for `clear()`.
This commit changes `clear()` to do the work itself. This modest change
was first proposed in rust-lang#74172, where the reviewer rejected it because
there was insufficient evidence that `Vec::clear()`'s performance
mattered enough to justify the change. Recent changes within rustc have
made `Vec::clear()` hot within `macro_parser.rs`, so the change is now
clearly worthwhile.
Although it doesn't show wins on CI perf runs, this seems to be because they
use PGO. But not all platforms currently use PGO. Also, local builds don't use
PGO, and `truncate` sometimes shows up in an over-represented fashion in local
profiles. So local profiling will be made easier by this change.
Note that this will also benefit `String::clear()`, because it just
calls `Vec::clear()`.
Finally, the commit removes the `vec-clear.rs` codegen test. It was
added in #52908. From before then until now, `Vec::clear()` just called
`Vec::truncate()` with a zero length. The body of Vec::truncate() has
changed a lot since then. Now that `Vec::clear()` is doing actual work
itself, and not just calling `Vec::truncate()`, it's not surprising that
its generated code includes a load and an icmp. I think it's reasonable
to remove this test.
r? `@m-ou-se`
Make some `usize`-typed masks definitions agnostic to the size of `usize`
Some masks where defined as
```rust
const NONASCII_MASK: usize = 0x80808080_80808080u64 as usize;
```
where it was assumed that `usize` is never wider than 64, which is currently true.
To make those constants valid in a hypothetical 128-bit target, these constants have been redefined in an `usize`-width-agnostic way
```rust
const NONASCII_MASK: usize = usize::from_ne_bytes([0x80; size_of::<usize>()]);
```
There are already some cases where Rust anticipates the possibility of supporting 128-bit targets, such as not implementing `From<usize>` for `u64`.
docs: add link from zip to unzip
The docs for `Iterator::unzip` explain that it is kind of an inverse operation to `Iterator::zip` and guide the reader to the `zip` docs, but the `zip` docs don't let the user know that they can undo the `zip` operation with `unzip`. This change modifies the docs to help the user find `unzip`.
MaybeUninit array cleanup
* Links `MaybeUninit::uninit_array` to meta-tracking issue
* Links `MaybeUninit::array_assume_init` to meta-tracking issue
* Unstably constifies `MaybeUninit::array_assume_init`
Another thing worth mentioning: this splits the const feature flag for `maybe_uninit_uninit_array` into `const_maybe_uninit_uninit_array` to avoid weird cases where only one gets stabilised.
Note that it may be desired to keep the `array_assume_init` method linked to its dedicated issue, but at least for now, I decided to link to the meta-tracking issue so that all of the methods lead users to the same place. But I can revert that bit if desired.
The meta-tracking issue that I filed is #96097.
implement SIMD gather/scatter via vector getelementptr
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/portable-simd/issues/271
However, I don't *really* know what I am doing here... Cc ``@workingjubilee`` ``@calebzulawski``
I didn't do anything for cranelift -- ``@bjorn3`` not sure if it's okay for that backend to temporarily break. I'm happy to cherry-pick a patch that adds cranelift support. :)
The `vec!` macro has 3 rules, but two are not usable under
`no_global_oom_handling` builds of the standard library
(even with a zero size):
```rust
let _ = vec![42]; // Error: requires `exchange_malloc` lang_item.
let _ = vec![42; 0]; // Error: cannot find function `from_elem`.
```
Thus those two rules should not be available to begin with.
The remaining one, with an empty matcher, is just a shorthand for
`new()` and may not make as much sense to have alone, since the
idea behind `vec!` is to enable `Vec`s to be defined with the same
syntax as array expressions. Furthermore, the documentation can be
confusing since it shows the other rules.
Thus perhaps it is better and simpler to disable `vec!` entirely
under `no_global_oom_handling` environments, and let users call
`new()` instead:
```rust
let _: Vec<i32> = vec![];
let _: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
```
Notwithstanding this, a `try_vec!` macro would be useful, such as
the one introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95051.
If the shorthand for `new()` is deemed worth keeping on its own,
then it may be interesting to have a separate `vec!` macro with
a single rule and different, simpler documentation.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Optimize RcInnerPtr::inc_strong()/inc_weak() instruction count
Inspired by this internals thread: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rc-optimization-on-64-bit-targets/16362
[The generated assembly is a bit smaller](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/TeTnf6144) and is a more efficient usage of the CPU's instruction cache. `unlikely` doesn't impact any of the small artificial tests I've done, but I've included it in case it might help more complex scenarios when this is inlined.
Use u32 instead of i32 for futexes.
This changes futexes from i32 to u32. The [Linux man page](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/futex.2.html) uses `uint32_t` for them, so I'm not sure why I used i32 for them. Maybe because I first used them for thread parkers, where I used -1, 0, and 1 as the states.
(Wasm's `memory.atomic.wait32` does use `i32`, because wasm doesn't support `u32`.)
It doesn't matter much, but using the unsigned type probably results in fewer surprises when shifting bits around or using comparison operators.
r? ```@Amanieu```
Create (unstable) 2024 edition
[On Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Deprecating.20macro.20scoping.20shenanigans/near/272860652), there was a small aside regarding creating the 2024 edition now as opposed to later. There was a reasonable amount of support and no stated opposition.
This change creates the 2024 edition in the compiler and creates a prelude for the 2024 edition. There is no current difference between the 2021 and 2024 editions. Cargo and other tools will need to be updated separately, as it's not in the same repository. This change permits the vast majority of work towards the next edition to proceed _now_ instead of waiting until 2024.
For sanity purposes, I've merged the "hello" UI tests into a single file with multiple revisions. Otherwise we'd end up with a file per edition, despite them being essentially identical.
````@rustbot```` label +T-lang +S-waiting-on-review
Not sure on the relevant team, to be honest.
Stabilize `derive_default_enum`
This stabilizes `#![feature(derive_default_enum)]`, as proposed in [RFC 3107](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3107) and tracked in #87517. In short, it permits you to `#[derive(Default)]` on `enum`s, indicating what the default should be by placing a `#[default]` attribute on the desired variant (which must be a unit variant in the interest of forward compatibility).
```````@rustbot``````` label +S-waiting-on-review +T-lang
