Add more constants, functions, and tests for `f16` and `f128`
This adds everything that was in some way blocked on const eval, since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126429 landed. There is a lot of `cfg(bootstrap)` since that is a fairly recent change.
`f128` tests are disabled on everything except x86_64 and Linux aarch64, which are two platforms I know have "good" support for these types - meaning basic math symbols are available and LLVM doesn't hit selection crashes. `f16` tests are enabled on almost everything except for known LLVM crashes. Doctests are only enabled on x86_64.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909
fix Drop items getting leaked in Filter::next_chunk
The optimization only makes sense for non-drop elements anyway. Use the default implementation for items that are Drop instead.
It also simplifies the implementation.
fixes#126872
tracking issue #98326
The optimization only makes sense for non-drop elements anyway.
Use the default implementation for items that are Drop instead.
It also simplifies the implementation.
core: VaArgSafe is an unsafe trait
`T: VaArgSafe` is relied on for soundness. Safe impls promise nothing. Therefore this must be an unsafe trait. Slightly pedantic, as only core can impl this, but we *could* choose to unseal the trait. That would allow soundly (but unsafely) implementing this for e.g. a `#[repr(C)] struct` that should be passable by varargs.
Relates to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#98871
This adds everything that was directly or transitively blocked on const
arithmetic for these types, which was recently merged.
Since const arithmetic is recent, most of these need to be gated by
`bootstrap`.
Anything that relies on intrinsics that are still missing is excluded.
The symbols that these tests rely on are not available on all platforms
and some ABIs are buggy, tests that rely on external functions are
configured to only run on x86 (`f128`) or aarch64 (`f16`).
`T: VaArgSafe` is relied on for soundness. Safe impls promise nothing.
Therefore this must be an unsafe trait. Slightly pedantic, as
only core can impl this, but we could choose to unseal the trait.
That would allow soundly (but unsafely) implementing this for e.g.
a `#[repr(C)] struct` that should be passable by varargs.
SmartPointer derive-macro
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Possibly replacing #123472 for continued upkeep of the proposal rust-lang/rfcs#3621 and implementation of the tracking issue #123430.
cc `@Darksonn` `@wedsonaf`
This is possible now that inline const blocks are stable; the idea was
even mentioned as an alternative when `uninit_array()` was added:
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a
> standard library method that will be replaceable with
> `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
Const array repetition and inline const blocks are now stable (in the
next release), so that circumstance has come to pass, and we no longer
have reason to want `uninit_array()` other than convenience. Therefore,
let’s evaluate the inconvenience by not using `uninit_array()` in
the standard library, before potentially deleting it entirely.
Update docs for AtomicBool/U8/I8 with regard to alignment
Fixes#126084.
Since `AtomicBool`/`AtomicU8`/`AtomicI8` are guaranteed to have size == 1, and Rust guarantees that `size % align == 0`, they also must have alignment equal to 1, so some current docs are contradictory/confusing when describing their alignment requirements.
Specifically:
* Fix `AtomicBool::from_ptr` claiming that `align_of::<AtomicBool>() > align_of::<bool>()` on some platforms. (same for `AtomicU8::from_ptr`/`AtomicI8::from_ptr`)
* Explicitly state that `AtomicU8`/`AtomicI8` have the same alignment as `u8`/`i8` (in addition to size and bit validity)
* (internal) Change the `if_not_8_bit` macro to be `if_8_bit` and to allow an "if-else"-like structure, instead of just "if"-like.
---
I opted to leave the "`ptr` must be aligned" wording in `from_ptr`'s docs and just clarify that it is always satsified, instead of just removing the wording entirely. If that is instead preferred I can do that.
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126140 (Rename `std::fs::try_exists` to `std::fs::exists` and stabilize fs_try_exists)
- #126318 (Add a `x perf` command for integrating bootstrap with `rustc-perf`)
- #126552 (Remove use of const traits (and `feature(effects)`) from stdlib)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove use of const traits (and `feature(effects)`) from stdlib
The current uses are already unsound because they are using non-const impls in const contexts. We can reintroduce them by reverting the commit in this PR, after #120639 lands.
Also, make `effects` an incomplete feature.
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
r? `@compiler-errors`
Generalize `{Rc,Arc}::make_mut()` to unsized types.
* `{Rc,Arc}::make_mut()` now accept any type implementing the new unstable trait `core::clone::CloneToUninit`.
* `CloneToUninit` is implemented for `T: Clone` and for `[T] where T: Clone`.
* `CloneToUninit` is a generalization of the existing internal trait `alloc::alloc::WriteCloneIntoRaw`.
* New feature gate: `clone_to_uninit`
This allows performing `make_mut()` on `Rc<[T]>` and `Arc<[T]>`, which was not previously possible.
---
Previous PR description, now obsolete:
> Add `{Rc, Arc}::make_mut_slice()`
>
> These functions behave identically to `make_mut()`, but operate on `Arc<[T]>` instead of `Arc<T>`.
>
> This allows performing the operation on slices, which was not previously possible because `make_mut()` requires `T: Clone` (and slices, being `!Sized`, do not and currently cannot implement `Clone`).
>
> Feature gate: `make_mut_slice`
try-job: test-various
This trait allows cloning DSTs, but is unsafe to implement and use
because it writes to possibly-uninitialized memory which must be of the
correct size, and must initialize that memory.
It is only implemented for `T: Clone` and `[T] where T: Clone`, but
additional implementations could be provided for specific `dyn Trait`
or custom-DST types.
Stop using `unlikely` in `strict_*` methods
The `strict_*` methods don't need (un)likely, because the `overflow_panic` calls are all `#[cold]`, [meaning](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes) that LLVM knows any branch to them is unlikely without us needing to say so.
r? libs
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126125 (Improve conflict marker recovery)
- #126481 (Add `powerpc-unknown-openbsd` maintenance status)
- #126613 (Print the tested value in int_log tests)
- #126617 (Expand `avx512_target_feature` to include VEX variants)
- #126700 (Make edition dependent `:expr` macro fragment act like the edition-dependent `:pat` fragment does)
- #126707 (Pass target to inaccessible-temp-dir rmake test)
- #126767 (`StaticForeignItem` and `StaticItem` are the same)
- #126774 (Fix another assertion failure for some Expect diagnostics.)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Print the tested value in int_log tests
Tiny change - from the failures in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125016, it would have been nice to see what the tested values were. Update the assertion messages.
It's unnecessary when that arm leads to a `#[cold]` panic anyway, since controlling branch likihood is what `#[cold]` is all about.
(And, well, it's unclear whether `unlikely!` even works these days anyway.)
Account for things that optimize out in inlining costs
This updates the MIR inlining `CostChecker` to have both bonuses and penalties, rather than just penalties.
That lets us add bonuses for some things where we want to encourage inlining without risking wrapping into a gigantic cost. For example, `switchInt(const …)` we give an inlining bonus because codegen will actually eliminate the branch (and associated dead blocks) once it's monomorphized, so measuring both sides of the branch gives an unrealistically-high cost to it. Similarly, an `unreachable` terminator gets a small bonus, because whatever branch leads there doesn't actually exist post-codegen.
Replace sort implementations
This PR replaces the sort implementations with tailor-made ones that strike a balance of run-time, compile-time and binary-size, yielding run-time and compile-time improvements. Regressing binary-size for `slice::sort` while improving it for `slice::sort_unstable`. All while upholding the existing soft and hard safety guarantees, and even extending the soft guarantees, detecting strict weak ordering violations with a high chance and reporting it to users via a panic.
* `slice::sort` -> driftsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/driftsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
* `slice::sort_unstable` -> ipnsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/ipnsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
#### Why should we change the sort implementations?
In the [2023 Rust survey](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/02/19/2023-Rust-Annual-Survey-2023-results.html#challenges), one of the questions was: "In your opinion, how should work on the following aspects of Rust be prioritized?". The second place was "Runtime performance" and the third one "Compile Times". This PR aims to improve both.
#### Why is this one big PR and not multiple?
* The current documentation gives performance recommendations for `slice::sort` and `slice::sort_unstable`. If for example only one of them were to be changed, this advice would be misleading for some Rust versions. By replacing them atomically, the advice remains largely unchanged, and users don't have to change their code.
* driftsort and ipnsort share a substantial part of their implementations.
* The implementation of `select_nth_unstable` uses internals of `slice::sort_unstable`, which makes it impractical to split changes.
---
This PR is a collaboration with `@orlp.`
Remove `feature(const_closures)` from libcore
This is an incomplete feature and apparently it has no uses in `core`. Incomplete features should generally not be used in our standard library.
Clean up some comments near `use` declarations
#125443 will reformat all `use` declarations in the repository. There are a few edge cases involving comments on `use` declarations that require care. This PR cleans up some clumsy comment cases, taking us a step closer to #125443 being able to merge.
r? ``@lqd``
Make Option::as_[mut_]slice const
These two functions can both be made `const`. I have added them to the `const_option_ext` feature, #91930. I don't believe there is anything blocking stabilization of `as_slice`, but `as_mut_slice` contains mutable references so depends on `const_mut_refs`.
Stabilise `c_unwind`
Fix#74990Fix#115285 (that's also where FCP is happening)
Marking as draft PR for now due to `compiler_builtins` issues
r? `@Amanieu`
reword the hint::blackbox non-guarantees
People were tripped up by the "precludes", interpreting it that this function must not ever be used in cryptographic contexts rather than the std lib merely making zero promises about it being fit-for-purpose.
What remains unchanged is that if someone does try to use it *despite the warnings* then it is on them to pin their compiler versions and verify the assembly of every single binary build they do.
Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
People were tripped up by the "precludes", interpreting it that this function
must not ever be used in cryptographic contexts rather than the std lib merely
making zero promises about it being fit-for-purpose.
What remains unchanged is that if someone does try to use it *despite the warnings*
then it is on them to pin their compiler versions and verify the assembly of every
single binary build they do.
