RawVec was previously exposed for compiler-internal use (libarena specifically) in 1acbb0a935
Since it is unstable, doc-hidden and has no associated tracking issue it was never meant for public use. And since
it is no longer used outside alloc itself it can be made private again.
Also remove some functions that are dead due to lack of internal users.
Add #[must_use] to alloc functions that would leak memory
As [requested](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89899#issuecomment-955600779) by `@joshtriplett.`
> Please do go ahead and add the ones whose only legitimate use for ignoring the return value is leaking memory. (In a separate PR please.) I think it's sufficiently error-prone to call something like alloc and ignore the result that it's legitimate to require `let _ =` for that.
I added `realloc` myself. Clippy ignored it because of its `mut` argument.
```rust
alloc/src/alloc.rs:123:1 alloc unsafe fn realloc(ptr: *mut u8, layout: Layout, new_size: usize) -> *mut u8;
```
Parent issue: #89692
r? `@joshtriplett`
Add #[must_use] to remaining core functions
I've run out of compelling reasons to group functions together across crates so I'm just going to go module-by-module. This is everything remaining from the `core` crate.
Ignored by clippy for reasons unknown:
```rust
core::alloc::Layout unsafe fn for_value_raw<T: ?Sized>(t: *const T) -> Self;
core::any const fn type_name_of_val<T: ?Sized>(_val: &T) -> &'static str;
```
Ignored by clippy because of `mut`:
```rust
str fn split_at_mut(&mut self, mid: usize) -> (&mut str, &mut str);
```
<del>
Ignored by clippy presumably because a caller might want `f` called for side effects. That seems like a bad usage of `map` to me.
```rust
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map<U: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> Ref<'b, T>;
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map_split<U: ?Sized, V: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> (Ref<'b, U>, Ref<'b, V>);
```
</del>
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
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```
Previously, it wasn't clear whether "This could include" was referring
to logic errors, or undefined behaviour. Tweak wording to clarify this
sentence does not relate to UB.
Fix MIRI UB in `Vec::swap_remove`
Fixes#90055
I find it weird that `Vec::swap_remove` read the last element to the stack just to immediately put it back in the `Vec` in place of the one at index `index`. It seems much more natural to me to just read the element at position `index` and then move the last element in its place. I guess this might also slightly improve codegen.
Avoid overflow in `VecDeque::with_capacity_in()`.
The overflow only happens if alloc is compiled with overflow checks enabled and the passed capacity is greater or equal 2^(usize::BITS-1). The overflow shadows the expected "capacity overflow" panic leading to a test failure if overflow checks are enabled for std in the CI.
Unblocks [CI: Enable overflow checks for test (non-dist) builds #89776](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89776).
For some reason the overflow is only observable with optimization turned off, but that is a separate issue.
Avoid allocations and copying in Vec::leak
The [`Vec::leak`] method (#62195) is currently implemented by calling `Vec::into_boxed_slice` and `Box::leak`. This shrinks the vector before leaking it, which potentially causes a reallocation and copies the vector's contents.
By avoiding the conversion to `Box`, we can instead leak the vector without any expensive operations, just by returning a slice reference and forgetting the `Vec`. Users who *want* to shrink the vector first can still do so by calling `shrink_to_fit` explicitly.
**Note:** This could break code that uses `Box::from_raw` to “un-leak” the slice returned by `Vec::leak`. However, the `Vec::leak` docs explicitly forbid this, so such code is already incorrect.
[`Vec::leak`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.leak
Optimize VecDeque::append
Optimize `VecDeque::append` to do unsafe copy rather than iterating through each element.
On my `Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 @ 2.20GHz`, the benchmark shows 37% improvements:
```
Master:
custom-bench vec_deque_append 583164 ns/iter
custom-bench vec_deque_append 550040 ns/iter
Patched:
custom-bench vec_deque_append 349204 ns/iter
custom-bench vec_deque_append 368164 ns/iter
```
Additional notes on the context: this is the third attempt to implement a non-trivial version of `VecDeque::append`, the last two are reverted due to unsoundness or regression, see:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52553, reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53571
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53564, reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54851
Both cases are covered by existing tests.
Signed-off-by: tabokie <xy.tao@outlook.com>
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.
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_value conversions
I added two methods to the list myself. Clippy did not flag them because they take `mut` args, but neither modifies their argument.
```rust
core::str const unsafe fn from_utf8_unchecked_mut(v: &mut [u8]) -> &mut str;
std::ffi::CString unsafe fn from_raw(ptr: *mut c_char) -> CString;
```
I put a custom note on `from_raw`:
```rust
#[must_use = "call `drop(from_raw(ptr))` if you intend to drop the `CString`"]
pub unsafe fn from_raw(ptr: *mut c_char) -> CString {
```
Parent issue: #89692
r? ``@joshtriplett``
Add #[must_use] to alloc constructors
Added `#[must_use]`. to the various forms of `new`, `pin`, and `with_capacity` in the `alloc` crate. No extra explanations given as I couldn't think of anything useful to add.
I figure this deserves extra scrutiny compared to the other PRs I've done so far. In particular:
* The 4 `pin`/`pin_in` methods I touched. Are there legitimate use cases for pinning and not using the result? Pinning's a difficult concept I'm not very comfortable with.
* `Box`'s constructors. Do people ever create boxes just for the side effects... allocating or zeroing out memory?
Parent issue: #89692
r? ``@joshtriplett``
Cfg hide no_global_oom_handling and no_fp_fmt_parse
These are unstable sysroot customisation cfg options that only projects building their own sysroot will use (e.g. Rust-for-linux). Most users shouldn't care. `no_global_oom_handling` can be especially annoying since it's applied on many commonly used alloc crate methods (e.g. `Box::new`, `Vec::push`).
r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
