There's a conversation in the tracking issue about possibly unaccepting `in_band_lifetimes`, but it's used heavily in the compiler, and thus there'd need to be a bunch of PRs like this if that were to happen.
So here's one to see how much of an impact it has.
(Oh, and I removed `nll` while I was here too, since it didn't seem needed. Let me know if I should put that back.)
Stabilize `const_panic`
Closes#51999
FCP completed in #89006
```@rustbot``` label +A-const-eval +A-const-fn +T-lang
cc ```@oli-obk``` for review (not `r?`'ing as not on lang team)
Don't use a generator for BoxedResolver
The generator is non-trivial and requires unsafe code anyway. Using regular unsafe code without a generator is much easier to follow.
Based on #85810 as it touches rustc_interface too.
Replace const_cstr with cstr crate
This PR replaces the `const_cstr` macro inside `rustc_data_structures` with `cstr` macro from [cstr](https://crates.io/crates/cstr) crate.
The two macros basically serve the same purpose, which is to generate `&'static CStr` from a string literal. `cstr` is better because it validates the literal at compile time, while the existing `const_cstr` does it at runtime when `debug_assertions` is enabled. In addition, the value `cstr` generates can be used in constant context (which is seemingly not needed anywhere currently, though).
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
Move likely/unlikely argument outside of invisible unsafe block
The previous `likely!`/`unlikely!` macros were unsound because it permits the caller's expr to contain arbitrary unsafe code.
```rust
pub fn huh() -> bool {
likely!(std::ptr::read(&() as *const () as *const bool))
}
```
**Before:** compiles cleanly.
**After:**
```console
error[E0133]: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe function or block
|
70 | likely!(std::ptr::read(&() as *const () as *const bool))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
```
The previous `likely!`/`unlikely!` macros were unsound because it
permits the caller's expr to contain arbitrary unsafe code.
pub fn huh() -> bool {
likely!(std::ptr::read(&() as *const () as *const bool))
}
Before: compiles cleanly.
After:
error[E0133]: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe function or block
|
70 | likely!(std::ptr::read(&() as *const () as *const bool))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
perf: buffer SipHasher128
This is an attempt to improve Siphasher128 performance by buffering input. Although it reduces instruction count, I'm not confident the effect on wall times, or lack-thereof, is worth the change.
---
Additional notes not reflected in source comments:
* Implementation choices were guided by a combination of results from rustc-perf and micro-benchmarks, mostly the former.
* ~~I tried a couple of different struct layouts that might be more cache friendly with no obvious effect.~~ Update: a particular struct layout was chosen, but it's not critical to performance. See comments in source and discussion below.
* I suspect that buffering would be important to a SIMD-accelerated algorithm, but from what I've read and my own tests, SipHash does not seem very amenable to SIMD acceleration, at least by SSE.
use `array_windows` instead of `windows` in the compiler
I do think these changes are beautiful, but do have to admit that using type inference for the window length
can easily be confusing. This seems like a general issue with const generics, where inferring constants adds an additional
complexity which users have to learn and keep in mind.