Fix `ptr::from_ref` documentation example comment
The comment says that the expression involves no function call, but that was only true for the example above, the example here _does_ contain a function call.
``@rustbot`` label A-docs
Fix doc for read&write unaligned in zst operation
### PR Description
This PR addresses an inconsistency in the Rust documentation regarding `read_unaligned ` and `write_unaligned` on zero-sized types (ZSTs). The current documentation for [pointer validity](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/ptr/index.html#safety) states that for zero-sized types (ZSTs), null pointers are valid:
> For zero-sized types (ZSTs), every pointer is valid, including the null pointer.
However, there is an inconsistency in the documentation for the unaligned read operation in the function [ptr::read_unaligned](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/ptr/fn.read_unaligned.html)(as well as `write_unaligned`), which states:
> Note that even if T has size 0, the pointer must be non-null.
This change is also supported by [PR #134912](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134912)
> the _unaligned method docs should be fixed.
ptr docs: make it clear that we are talking only about memory accesses
This should make it harder to take this sentence out of context and misunderstand it.
The comment says that the expression involves no function call, but
that was only true for the example above, the example here _does_
contain a function call.
Implement `PointerLike` for `isize`, `NonNull`, `Cell`, `UnsafeCell`, and `SyncUnsafeCell`.
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `UnsafeCell` enables the possibility of interior mutable `dyn*` values. Since this means potentially exercising new codegen behavior, I added a test for it in `tests/ui/dyn-star/cell.rs`. Please let me know if there are further sorts of tests that should be written, or other care that should be taken with this change.
It is unfortunately not possible without compiler changes to implement `PointerLike` for `Atomic*` types, since they are not `repr(transparent)` (and, in theory if not in practice, `AtomicUsize`'s alignment may be greater than that of an ordinary pointer or `usize`).
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `NonNull` is useful for pointer types which wrap `NonNull`.
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `isize` is just for completeness; I have no use cases in mind, but I cannot think of any reason not to do this.
* Tracking issue: #102425
`@rustbot` label +F-dyn_star
(there is no label or tracking issue for F-pointer_like_trait)
Implementing `PointerLike` for `UnsafeCell` enables the possibility of
interior mutable `dyn*` values. Since this means potentially exercising
new codegen behavior, I added a test for it in `tests/ui/dyn-star/cell.rs`.
Also updated UI tests to account for the `isize` implementation changing
error messages.
Correctly document CTFE behavior of is_null and methods that call is_null.
The "panic in const if CTFE doesn't know the answer" behavior was discussed to be the desired behavior in #74939, and is currently how the function actually behaves.
I intentionally wrote this documentation to allow for the possibility that a panic might not occur even if the pointer is out of bounds, because of #133700 and other potential changes in the future.
This is beta-nominated since `const fn is_null` stabilization is in beta already but the docs there are wrong, and it seems better to have the docs be correct at the time of stabilization.
The "panic in const if CTFE doesn't know the answer" behavior was discussed to be the desired behavior in #74939, and is currently how the function actually behaves.
I intentionally wrote this documentation to allow for the possibility that a panic might not occur even if the pointer is out of bounds, because of #133700 and other potential changes in the future.
This commit splits the `#[rustc_deny_explicit_impl(implement_via_object = ...)]` attribute
into two attributes `#[rustc_deny_explicit_impl]` and `#[rustc_do_not_implement_via_object]`.
This allows us to have special traits that can have user-defined impls but do not have the
automatic trait impl for trait objects (`impl Trait for dyn Trait`).
Update `NonZero` and `NonNull` to not field-project (per MCP#807)
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/807#issuecomment-2506098540 was accepted, so this is the first PR towards moving the library to not using field projections into `[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_*]` types.
`NonZero` was already using `transmute` nearly everywhere, so there are very few changes to it.
`NonNull` needed more changes, but they're mostly simple, changing `.pointer` to `.as_ptr()`.
r? libs
cc #133324, which will tidy up some of the MIR from this a bit more, but isn't a blocker.
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
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.
feat(byte_sub_ptr): unstably add ptr::byte_sub_ptr
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95892).
Original PR by ``@Gankra`` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121919), I am just reviving it. The 2nd commit (with a small docs tweak) is by me.
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.
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (#95892).
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
library: consistently use American spelling for 'behavior'
We use "behavior" a lot more often than "behaviour", but some "behaviour" have even snuck into user-facing docs. This makes the spelling consistent.
