Implement (part of) ACP 429: add `DerefMut` to `Lazy[Cell/Lock]`
`DerefMut` is instantly stable, as a trait impl. That means this needs an FCP.
``@rustbot`` label +needs-fcp
https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/429
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.
Other cell `into_inner` functions are const and there shouldn't be any
problem here. Make the unstable `LazyCell::into_inner` const under the
same gate as its stability (`lazy_cell_into_inner`).
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125623
In the implementation of `force_mut`, I chose performance over safety.
For `LazyLock` this isn't really a choice; the code has to be unsafe.
But for `LazyCell`, we can have a full-safe implementation, but it will
be a bit less performant, so I went with the unsafe approach.
`Cell` and `RefCell` have their `into_inner` methods const unstable.
`OnceCell` has the same logic, so add it under the same gate.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78729
Change pedantically incorrect OnceCell/OnceLock wording
While the semantic intent of a OnceCell/OnceLock is that it can only be written to once (upon init), the fact of the matter is that both these types offer a `take(&mut self) -> Option<T>` mechanism that, when successful, resets the cell to its initial state, thereby [technically allowing it to be written to again](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=415c023a6ae1ef35f371a2d3bb1aa735)
Despite the fact that this can only happen with a mutable reference (generally only used during the construction of the OnceCell/OnceLock), it would be incorrect to say that the type itself as a whole *categorically* prevents being initialized or written to more than once (since it is possible to imagine an identical type only without the `take()` method that actually fulfills that contract).
To clarify, change "that cannot be.." to "that nominally cannot.." and add a note to OnceCell about what can be done with an `&mut Self` reference.
```@rustbot``` label +A-rustdocs
While the semantic intent of a OnceCell/OnceLock is that it can only be written
to once (upon init), the fact of the matter is that both these types offer a
`take(&mut self) -> Option<T>` mechanism that, when successful, resets the cell
to its initial state, thereby technically allowing it to be written to again.
Despite the fact that this can only happen with a mutable reference (generally
only used during the construction of the OnceCell/OnceLock), it would be
incorrect to say that the type itself as a whole categorically prevents being
initialized or written to more than once (since it is possible to imagine an
identical type only without the `take()` method that actually fulfills that
contract).
To clarify, change "that cannot be.." to "that nominally cannot.." and add a
note to OnceCell about what can be done with an `&mut Self` reference.
Make `Debug` representations of `[Lazy, Once]*[Cell, Lock]` consistent with `Mutex` and `RwLock`
`Mutex` prints `<locked>` as a field value when its inner value cannot be accessed, but the lazy types print a fixed string like "`OnceCell(Uninit)`". This could cause confusion if the inner type is a unit type named `Uninit` and does not respect the pretty-printing flag. With this change, the format message is now "`OnceCell(<uninit>)`", consistent with `Mutex`.
`Mutex` prints `<locked>` as a field value when its inner value cannot be accessed, but the lazy types print a fixed string like "`OnceCell(Uninit)`". This could cause confusion if the inner type is a unit type named `Uninit` and does not respect the pretty-printing flag. With this change, the format message is now "`OnceCell(<uninit>)`", consistent with `Mutex`.
Add #[inline] markers to once_cell methods
Added inline markers to all simple methods under the `once_cell` feature. Relates to #74465 and #105587
This should not block #105587
More inference-friendly API for lazy
The signature for new was
```
fn new<F>(f: F) -> Lazy<T, F>
```
Notably, with `F` unconstrained, `T` can be literally anything, and just `let _ = Lazy::new(|| 92)` would not typecheck.
This historiacally was a necessity -- `new` is a `const` function, it couldn't have any bounds. Today though, we can move `new` under the `F: FnOnce() -> T` bound, which gives the compiler enough data to infer the type of T from closure.
The signature for new was
```
fn new<F>(f: F) -> Lazy<T, F>
```
Notably, with `F` unconstrained, `T` can be literally anything, and just
`let _ = Lazy::new(|| 92)` would not typecheck.
This historiacally was a necessity -- `new` is a `const` function, it
couldn't have any bounds. Today though, we can move `new` under the `F:
FnOnce() -> T` bound, which gives the compiler enough data to infer the
type of T from closure.
