This change updates the documentation for `NonZero` integer types to
explicitly reference the underlying integer type each `NonZero` variant
wraps, instead of using a general "integer" term.
Add LowerExp and UpperExp implementations to NonZero
Adds `LowerExp` and `UpperExp` trait implementations to `NonZero`, as discussed in rust-lang/libs-team#458.
I had to modify the macro to mark the new impls with a different rust version. Let me know if this is the right way to do it (first timer here!)
remove some unnecessary rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable
These are either unstable functions that don't need the attribute, or the attribute refers to a feature that is already stable.
Use Hacker's Delight impl in `i64::midpoint` instead of wide `i128` impl
This PR switches `i64::midpoint` and (`isize::midpoint` where `isize == i64`) to using our Hacker's Delight impl instead of wide `i128` implementation.
As LLVM seems to be outperformed by the complexity of signed 128-bits number compared to our Hacker's Delight implementation.[^1]
It doesn't seems like it's an improvement for the other sizes[^2], so we let them with the wide implementation.
[^1]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/ravE75EYj
[^2]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fzr171zKh
r? libs
As LLVM seems to be outperformed by the complexity of signed 128-bits
number compared to our Hacker's Delight implementation.[^1]
It doesn't seems like it's an improvement for the other sizes[^2], so we
let them with the wide implementation.
[^1]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/ravE75EYj
[^2]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fzr171zKh
Instead of towards negative infinity as is currently the case.
This done so that the obvious expectations of
`midpoint(a, b) == midpoint(b, a)` and
`midpoint(-a, -b) == -midpoint(a, b)` are true, which makes the even
more obvious implementation `(a + b) / 2` true.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110840#issuecomment-2336753931
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
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
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
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, all the holes mentioned above have been 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 be manually marked `#[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.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
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.
Some float methods are now `const fn` under the `const_float_methods` feature gate.
In order to support `min`, `max`, `abs` and `copysign`, the implementation of some intrinsics had to be moved from Miri to rustc_const_eval.
Mark `u8::make_ascii_uppercase` and `u8::make_ascii_lowercase` as const.
Relevant tracking issue: #130698
This PR extends #130697 by also marking the `make_ascii_uppercase` and `make_ascii_lowercase` methods in `u8` as const.
The `const_char_make_ascii` feature gate is additionally renamed to `const_make_ascii`.
[Clippy] Get rid of most `std` `match_def_path` usage, swap to diagnostic items.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5393.
This was going to remove all `std` paths, but `SeekFrom` has issues being cleanly replaced with a diagnostic item as the paths are for variants, which currently cannot be diagnostic items.
This also, as a last step, categories the paths to help with future path removals.
Improve documentation for <integer>::from_str_radix
Two improvements to the documentation:
- Document `-` as a valid character for signed integer destinations
- Make the documentation even more clear that extra whitespace and non-digit characters is invalid. Many other languages, e.g. c++, are very permissive in string to integer routines and simply try to consume as much as they can, ignoring the rest. This is trying to make the transition for developers who are used to the conversion semantics in these languages a bit easier.
simplify float::classify logic
I played around with the float-classify test in the hope of triggering x87 bugs by strategically adding `black_box`, and still the exact expression `@beetrees` suggested [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129835#issuecomment-2325661597) remains the only case I found where we get the wrong result on x87. Curiously, this bug only occurs when MIR optimizations are enabled -- probably the extra inlining that does is required for LLVM to hit the right "bad" case in the backend. But even for that case, it makes no difference whether `classify` is implemented in the simple bit-pattern-based version or the more complicated version we had before.
Without even a single testcase that can distinguish our `classify` from the naive version, I suggest we switch to the naive version.
some const cleanup: remove unnecessary attributes, add const-hack indications
I learned that we use `FIXME(const-hack)` on top of the "const-hack" label. That seems much better since it marks the right place in the code and moves around with the code. So I went through the PRs with that label and added appropriate FIXMEs in the code. IMO this means we can then remove the label -- Cc ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval.``
I also noticed some const stability attributes that don't do anything useful, and removed them.
r? ``@fee1-dead``
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126452 (Implement raw lifetimes and labels (`'r#ident`))
- #129555 (stabilize const_float_bits_conv)
- #129594 (explain the options bootstrap passes to curl)
- #129677 (Don't build by-move body when async closure is tainted)
- #129847 (Do not call query to compute coroutine layout for synthetic body of async closure)
- #129869 (add a few more crashtests)
- #130009 (rustdoc-search: allow trailing `Foo ->` arg search)
- #130046 (str: make as_mut_ptr and as_bytes_mut unstably const)
- #130047 (Win: Add dbghelp to the list of import libraries)
- #130059 (Remove the unused `llvm-skip-rebuild` option from x.py)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Two improvements to the documentation:
- Document `-` as a valid character for signed integer destinations
- Make the documentation even more clear that extra whitespace and non-digit characters is invalid. Many other
languages, e.g. c++, are very permissive in string to integer routines and simply try to consume as much as they can,
ignoring the rest. This is trying to make the transition for developers who are used to the conversion semantics in
these languages a bit easier.
* Use a lookup table for 8-bit integers and the Karatsuba square root
algorithm for larger integers.
* Include optimization hints that give the compiler the exact numeric
range of results.
Add implementations for `unbounded_shl`/`unbounded_shr`
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129375
This implements `unbounded_shl` and `unbounded_shr` under the feature gate `unbounded_shifts`
