Add `Box::into_inner`.
This adds a `Box::into_inner` method to the `Box` type. <del>I actually suggest deprecating the compiler magic of `*b` if this gets stablized in the future.</del>
r? `@m-ou-se`
Add `core::stream::Stream`
[[Tracking issue: #79024](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79024)]
This patch adds the `core::stream` submodule and implements `core::stream::Stream` in accordance with [RFC2996](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2996). The RFC hasn't been merged yet, but as requested by the libs team in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2996#issuecomment-725696389 I'm filing this PR to get the ball rolling.
## Documentatation
The docs in this PR have been adapted from [`std::iter`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/index.html), [`async_std::stream`](https://docs.rs/async-std/1.7.0/async_std/stream/index.html), and [`futures::stream::Stream`](https://docs.rs/futures/0.3.8/futures/stream/trait.Stream.html). Once this PR lands my plan is to follow this up with PRs to add helper methods such as `stream::repeat` which can be used to document more of the concepts that are currently missing. That will allow us to cover concepts such as "infinite streams" and "laziness" in more depth.
## Feature gate
The feature gate for `Stream` is `stream_trait`. This matches the `#[lang = "future_trait"]` attribute name. The intention is that only the APIs defined in RFC2996 will use this feature gate, with future additions such as `stream::repeat` using their own feature gates. This is so we can ensure a smooth path towards stabilizing the `Stream` trait without needing to stabilize all the APIs in `core::stream` at once. But also don't start expanding the API until _after_ stabilization, as was the case with `std::future`.
__edit:__ the feature gate has been changed to `async_stream` to match the feature gate proposed in the RFC.
## Conclusion
This PR introduces `core::stream::{Stream, Next}` and re-exports it from `std` as `std::stream::{Stream, Next}`. Landing `Stream` in the stdlib has been a mult-year process; and it's incredibly exciting for this to finally happen!
---
r? `````@KodrAus`````
cc/ `````@rust-lang/wg-async-foundations````` `````@rust-lang/libs`````
For generic `T: Clone`, we can allocate an uninitialized box beforehand,
which gives the optimizer a chance to create the clone directly in the
heap. For `T: Copy`, we can go further and do a simple memory copy,
regardless of optimization level.
Remove many unnecessary manual link resolves from library
Now that #76934 has merged, we can remove a lot of these! E.g, this is
no longer necessary:
[`Vec<T>`]: Vec
cc `@jyn514`
clarify rules for ZST Boxes
LLVM's rules around `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 are a bit annoying, and as a consequence we have no choice but say that a `Box<()>` pointing to previously allocated memory that has since been freed is UB. Clarify the docs to reflect this.
This is based on conversations on the LLVM mailing list.
* Here's my initial mail: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130452.html
* The first email of the March part of that thread: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-March/130831.html
* First email of the April part: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-April/131693.html
The conclusion for me at least was that `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 is *not* the identity function, but can sometimes return `poison` even when the input is a regular pointer -- specifically, it returns `poison` when this pointer points into something that LLVM "knows has been deallocated", i.e., a former LLVM-managed allocation. It is however the identity function on pointers obtained by casting integers.
Note that there [are formal proposals](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf) for LLVM semantics where `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 isn't quite the identity function but never returns `poison` (it affects the provenance of the pointer but in a way that doesn't matter if this pointer is never used for memory accesses), and indeed this is likely necessary to consistently describe LLVM semantics. But with the informal LLVM LangRef that we have right now, and with LLVM devs insisting otherwise, it seems unwise to rely on this.
Remove `Box::leak_with_alloc`
Add leak-test for box with allocator
Rename `AllocErr` to `AllocError` in leak-test
Add `Box::alloc` and adjust examples to use the new API
New zeroed slice
Add to #63291 the methods
```rust
impl<T> Box<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Box<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
impl<T> Rc<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Rc<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
impl<T> Arc<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Arc<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
```
as suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63291#issuecomment-605511675 .
Also optimize `{Rc, Arc}::new_zeroed` to use `alloc_zeroed`, otherwise they are no more efficient than using `new_uninit` and zeroing the memory manually (which was the original implementation).
