Tidy up bigint multiplication methods
This tidies up the library version of the bigint multiplication methods after the addition of the intrinsics in #133663. It follows [this summary](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85532#issuecomment-2403442775) of what's desired for these methods.
Note that, if `2H = N`, then `uH::MAX * uH::MAX + uH::MAX + uH::MAX` is `uN::MAX`, and that we can effectively add two "carry" values without overflowing.
For ease of terminology, the "low-order" or "least significant" or "wrapping" half of multiplication will be called the low part, and the "high-order" or "most significant" or "overflowing" half of multiplication will be called the high part. In all cases, the return convention is `(low, high)` and left unchanged by this PR, to be litigated later.
## API Changes
The original API:
```rust
impl uN {
// computes self * rhs
pub const fn widening_mul(self, rhs: uN) -> (uN, uN);
// computes self * rhs + carry
pub const fn carrying_mul(self, rhs: uN, carry: uN) -> (uN, uN);
}
```
The added API:
```rust
impl uN {
// computes self * rhs + carry1 + carry2
pub const fn carrying2_mul(self, rhs: uN, carry: uN, add: uN) -> (uN, uN);
}
impl iN {
// note that the low part is unsigned
pub const fn widening_mul(self, rhs: iN) -> (uN, iN);
pub const fn carrying_mul(self, rhs: iN, carry: iN) -> (uN, iN);
pub const fn carrying_mul_add(self, rhs: iN, carry: iN, add: iN) -> (uN, iN);
}
```
Additionally, a naive implementation has been added for `u128` and `i128` since there are no double-wide types for those. Eventually, an intrinsic will be added to make these more efficient, but rather than doing this all at once, the library changes are added first.
## Justifications for API
The unsigned parts are done to ensure consistency with overflowing addition: for a two's complement integer, you want to have unsigned overflow semantics for all parts of the integer except the highest one. This is because overflow for unsigned integers happens on the highest bit (from `MAX` to zero), whereas overflow for signed integers happens on the second highest bit (from `MAX` to `MIN`). Since the sign information only matters in the highest part, we use unsigned overflow for everything but that part.
There is still discussion on the merits of signed bigint *addition* methods, since getting the behaviour right is very subtle, but at least for signed bigint *multiplication*, the sign of the operands does make a difference. So, it feels appropriate that at least until we've nailed down the final API, there should be an option to do signed versions of these methods.
Additionally, while it's unclear whether we need all three versions of bigint multiplication (widening, carrying-1, and carrying-2), since it's possible to have up to two carries without overflow, there should at least be a method to allow that. We could potentially only offer the carry-2 method and expect that adding zero carries afterword will optimise correctly, but again, this can be litigated before stabilisation.
## Note on documentation
While a lot of care was put into the documentation for the `widening_mul` and `carrying_mul` methods on unsigned integers, I have not taken this same care for `carrying_mul_add` or the signed versions. While I have updated the doc tests to be more appropriate, there will likely be many documentation changes done before stabilisation.
## Note on tests
Alongside this change, I've added several tests to ensure that these methods work as expected. These are alongside the codegen tests for the intrinsics.
stabilize const_swap
libs-api FCP passed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83163.
However, I only just realized that this actually involves an intrinsic. The intrinsic could be implemented entirely with existing stable const functionality, but we choose to make it a primitive to be able to detect more UB. So nominating for `@rust-lang/lang` to make sure they are aware; I leave it up to them whether they want to FCP this.
While at it I also renamed the intrinsic to make the "nonoverlapping" constraint more clear.
Fixes#83163
This commit seeks to stabilize the `#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend]`
attribute.
This attribute was first proposed as `#[do_not_recommend`] attribute in
RFC 2397 (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2397). It gives the
crate authors the ability to not suggest to the compiler to not show
certain traits in it's error messages. With the presence of the
`#[diagnostic]` tool attribute namespace it was decided to move the
attribute there, as that lowers the amount of guarantees the compiler
needs to give about the exact way this influences error messages. It
turns the attribute into a hint which can be ignored. In addition to the
original proposed functionality this attribute now also hides the marked
trait in help messages ("This trait is implemented by: ").
The attribute does not accept any argument and can only be placed on
trait implementations. If it is placed somewhere else a lint warning is
emitted and the attribute is otherwise ignored. If an argument is
detected a lint warning is emitted and the argument is ignored. This
follows the rules outlined by the diagnostic namespace.
This attribute allows crates like diesel to improve their error messages
drastically. The most common example here is the following error
message:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&str: Expression` is not satisfied
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:53:15
|
LL | SelectInt.check("bar");
| ^^^^^ the trait `Expression` is not implemented for `&str`, which is required by `&str: AsExpression<Integer>`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Expression`:
Bound<T>
SelectInt
note: required for `&str` to implement `AsExpression<Integer>`
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:26:13
|
LL | impl<T, ST> AsExpression<ST> for T
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
LL | where
LL | T: Expression<SqlType = ST>,
| ------------------------ unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
By applying the new attribute to the wild card trait implementation of
`AsExpression` for `T: Expression` the error message becomes:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&str: AsExpression<Integer>` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/as_expression.rs:55:15
|
LL | SelectInt.check("bar");
| ^^^^^ the trait `AsExpression<Integer>` is not implemented for `&str`
|
= help: the trait `AsExpression<Text>` is implemented for `&str`
= help: for that trait implementation, expected `Text`, found `Integer`
```
which makes it much easier for users to understand that they are facing
a type mismatch.
Other explored example usages included
* This standard library error message: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128008
* That bevy derived example:
e1f3068995/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend/supress_suggestions_in_help.rs (No
more tuple pyramids)
Fixes#51992
Bump boostrap compiler to new beta
Currently failing due to something about the const stability checks and `panic!`. I'm not sure why though since I wasn't able to see any PRs merged in the past few days that would result in a `cfg(bootstrap)` that shouldn't be removed. cc `@RalfJung` #131349
Minimally constify `Add`
* This PR removes the requirement for `impl const` to have a const stability attribute. cc ``@RalfJung`` I believe you mentioned that it would make much more sense to require `const_trait`s to have const stability instead. I agree with that sentiment but I don't think that is _required_ for a small scale experimentation like this PR. https://github.com/rust-lang/project-const-traits/issues/16 should definitely be prioritized in the future, but removing the impl check should be good for now as all callers need `const_trait_impl` enabled for any const impl to work.
* This PR is intentionally minimal as constifying other traits can become more complicated (`PartialEq`, for example, would run into requiring implementing it for `str` as that is used in matches, which runs into the implementation for slice equality which uses specialization)
Per the reasons above, anyone who is interested in making traits `const` in the standard library are **strongly encouraged** to reach out to us on the [Zulip channel](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits) before proceeding with the work.
cc ``@rust-lang/project-const-traits``
I believe there is prior approval from libs that we can experiment, so
r? project-const-traits
mark is_val_statically_known intrinsic as stably const-callable
The intrinsic doesn't actually "do" anything in terms of language semantics, and we are already using it in stable const fn. So let's just properly mark it as stably const-callable to avoid needing `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` (and thus reducing noise and keeping the remaining `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` as a more clear signal).
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` usually you have to approve exposing intrinsics in const, but this intrinsic is basically just a compiler implementation detail. So FCP doesn't seem necessary.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
Stabilise `const_char_encode_utf16`.
Closes: #130660
This PR stabilises the `const_char_encode_utf16` feature gate (i.e. support for `char::encode_utf16` in constant expressions).
~~Note that the linked tracking issue is as of this writing currently awaiting FCP until 2024-11-02.~~
remove const-support for align_offset and is_aligned
As part of the recent discussion to stabilize `ptr.is_null()` in const context, the general vibe was that it's okay for a const function to panic when the same operation would work at runtime (that's just a case of "dynamically detecting that something is not supported as a const operation"), but it is *not* okay for a const function to just return a different result.
Following that, `is_aligned` and `is_aligned_to` have their const status revoked in this PR, since they do return actively wrong results at const time. In the future we can consider having a new intrinsic or so that can check whether a pointer is "guaranteed to be aligned", but the current implementation based on `align_offset` does not have the behavior we want.
In fact `align_offset` itself behaves quite strangely in const, and that support needs a bunch of special hacks. That doesn't seem worth it. Instead, the users that can fall back to a different implementation should just use const_eval_select directly, and everything else should not be made const-callable. So this PR does exactly that, and entirely removes const support for align_offset.
Closes some tracking issues by removing the associated features:
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90962
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104203
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Operations like is_aligned would return actively wrong results at compile-time,
i.e. calling it on the same pointer at compiletime and runtime could yield
different results. That's no good.
Instead of having hacks to make align_offset kind-of work in const-eval, just
use const_eval_select in the few places where it makes sense, which also ensures
those places are all aware they need to make sure the fallback behavior is
consistent.
better test for const HashMap; remove const_hash leftovers
The existing `const_with_hasher` test is kind of silly since the HashMap it constructs can never contain any elements. So this adjusts the test to construct a usable HashMap, which is a bit non-trivial since the default hash builder cannot be built in `const`. `BuildHasherDefault::new()` helps but is unstable (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123197), so we also have a test that does not involve that type.
The second commit removes the last remnants of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104061, since they aren't actually useful -- without const traits, you can't do any hashing in `const`.
Cc ``@rust-lang/libs-api`` ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval``
Closes#104061
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102575
Mark `str::is_char_boundary` and `str::split_at*` unstably `const`.
Tracking issues: #131516, #131518
First commit implements `const_is_char_boundary`, second commit implements `const_str_split_at` (which depends on `const_is_char_boundary`)
~~I used `const_eval_select` for `is_char_boundary` since there is a comment about optimizations that would theoretically not happen with the simple `const`-compatible version (since `slice::get` is not `const`ifiable) cc #84751. I have not checked if this code difference is still required for the optimization, so it might not be worth the code complication, but 🤷.~~
This changes `str::split_at_checked` to use a new private helper function `split_at_unchecked` (copied from `split_at_mut_unchecked`) that does pointer stuff instead of `get_unchecked`, since that is not currently `const`ifiable due to using the `SliceIndex` trait.
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
Add `from_ref` and `from_mut` constructors to `core::ptr::NonNull`.
Relevant tracking issue: #130823
The `core::ptr::NonNull` type should have the convenience constructors `from_ref` and `from_mut` for parity with `core::ptr::from_ref` and `core::ptr::from_mut`.
Although the type in question already implements `From<&T>` and `From<&mut T>`, these new functions also carry the ability to be used in constant expressions (due to not being behind a trait).
