Constify slice.split_at_mut(_unchecked)
Tracking Issue: [Tracking Issue for const_slice_split_at_mut](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101804)
Feature gate: `#![feature(const_slice_split_at_mut)]`
Still requires const_mut_refs to be actually used, but this feature removes the need to manually re implement these functions in a user crate.
Clarify `[T]::select_nth_unstable*` return values
In cases where the nth element is not unique within the slice, it is not
correct to say that the values in the returned triplet include ones for
"all elements" less/greater than that at the given index: indeed one (or
more) such values would then also contain elements equal to that at
the given index.
The text proposed here clarifies exactly what is returned, but in so
doing it is also documenting an implementation detail that previously
wasn't detailed: namely that the returned slices are slices into the
reordered slice. I don't think this can be contentious, because the
lifetimes of those returned slices are bound to that of the original
(now reordered) slice—so there really isn't any other reasonable
implementation that could have this behaviour; but nevertheless it's
probably best if `@rust-lang/libs-api` give it a nod?
Fixes#97982
r? `@m-ou-se`
`@rustbot` label +A-docs +C-bug +T-libs-api -T-libs
Make ZST checks in core/alloc more readable
There's a bunch of these checks because of special handing for ZSTs in various unsafe implementations of stuff.
This lets them be `T::IS_ZST` instead of `mem::size_of::<T>() == 0` every time, making them both more readable and more terse.
*Not* proposed for stabilization. Would be `pub(crate)` except `alloc` wants to use it too.
(And while it doesn't matter now, if we ever get something like #85836 making it a const can help codegen be simpler.)
Refactor some `std` code that works with pointer offstes
This PR replaces `pointer::offset` in standard library with `pointer::add` and `pointer::sub`, [re]moving some casts and using `.addr()` while we are at it.
This is a more complicated refactor than all other sibling PRs, so take a closer look when reviewing, please 😃 (though I've checked this multiple times and it looks fine).
r? ````@scottmcm````
_split off from #100746, continuation of #100822_
There's a bunch of these checks because of special handing for ZSTs in various unsafe implementations of stuff.
This lets them be `T::IS_ZST` instead of `mem::size_of::<T>() == 0` every time, making them both more readable and more terse.
*Not* proposed for stabilization at this time. Would be `pub(crate)` except `alloc` wants to use it too.
(And while it doesn't matter now, if we ever get something like 85836 making it a const can help codegen be simpler.)
Optimize `array::IntoIter`
`.into_iter()` on arrays was slower than it needed to be (especially compared to slice iterator) since it uses `Range<usize>`, which needs to handle degenerate ranges like `10..4`.
This PR adds an internal `IndexRange` type that's like `Range<usize>` but with a safety invariant that means it doesn't need to worry about those cases -- it only handles `start <= end` -- and thus can give LLVM more information to optimize better.
I added one simple demonstration of the improvement as a codegen test.
(`vec::IntoIter` uses pointers instead of indexes, so doesn't have this problem, but that only works because its elements are boxed. `array::IntoIter` can't use pointers because that would keep it from being movable.)
`.into_iter()` on arrays was slower than it needed to be (especially compared to slice iterator) since it uses `Range<usize>`, which needs to handle degenerate ranges like `10..4`.
This PR adds an internal `IndexRange` type that's like `Range<usize>` but with a safety invariant that means it doesn't need to worry about those cases -- it only handles `start <= end` -- and thus can give LLVM more information to optimize better.
I added one simple demonstration of the improvement as a codegen test.
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
Make use of `[wrapping_]byte_{add,sub}`
These new methods trivially replace old `.cast().wrapping_offset().cast()` & similar code.
Note that [`arith_offset`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/intrinsics/fn.arith_offset.html) and `wrapping_offset` are the same thing.
r? ``@scottmcm``
_split off from #100746_
make slice::{split_at,split_at_unchecked} const functions
Now that `slice::from_raw_parts` is const in stable 1.64, it makes sense to have `split_at` const as well, otherwise unsafe code is required to achieve a const equivalent.
Replace most uses of `pointer::offset` with `add` and `sub`
As PR title says, it replaces `pointer::offset` in compiler and standard library with `pointer::add` and `pointer::sub`. This generally makes code cleaner, easier to grasp and removes (or, well, hides) integer casts.
This is generally trivially correct, `.offset(-constant)` is just `.sub(constant)`, `.offset(usized as isize)` is just `.add(usized)`, etc. However in some cases we need to be careful with signs of things.
r? ````@scottmcm````
_split off from #100746_
Fix slice::ChunksMut aliasing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94231, details in that issue.
cc `@RalfJung`
This isn't done just yet, all the safety comments are placeholders. But otherwise, it seems to work.
I don't really like this approach though. There's a lot of unsafe code where there wasn't before, but as far as I can tell the only other way to uphold the aliasing requirement imposed by `__iterator_get_unchecked` is to use raw slices, which I think require the same amount of unsafe code. All that would do is tie the `len` and `ptr` fields together.
Oh I just looked and I'm pretty sure that `ChunksExactMut`, `RChunksMut`, and `RChunksExactMut` also need to be patched. Even more reason to put up a draft.
Add `[f32]::sort_floats` and `[f64]::sort_floats`
It's inconvenient to sort a slice or Vec of floats, compared to sorting integers. To simplify numeric code, add a convenience method to `[f32]` and `[f64]` to sort them using `sort_unstable_by` with `total_cmp`.
Rearrange slice::split_mut to remove bounds check
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86313
Turns out that all we need to do here is reorder the bounds checks to convince LLVM that all the bounds checks can be removed. It seems like LLVM just fails to propagate the original length information past the first bounds check and into the second one. With this implementation it doesn't need to, each check can be proven inbounds based on the one immediately previous.
I've gradually convinced myself that this implementation is unambiguously better based on the above logic, but maybe this is still deserving of a codegen test?
Also the mentioned borrowck limitation no longer seems to exist.
