Rollup of 16 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #123374 (DOC: Add FFI example for slice::from_raw_parts())
- #124514 (Recommend to never display zero disambiguators when demangling v0 symbols)
- #125978 (Cleanup: HIR ty lowering: Consolidate the places that do assoc item probing & access checking)
- #125980 (Nvptx remove direct passmode)
- #126187 (For E0277 suggest adding `Result` return type for function when using QuestionMark `?` in the body.)
- #126210 (docs(core): make more const_ptr doctests assert instead of printing)
- #126249 (Simplify `[T; N]::try_map` signature)
- #126256 (Add {{target}} substitution to compiletest)
- #126263 (Make issue-122805.rs big endian compatible)
- #126281 (set_env: State the conclusion upfront)
- #126286 (Make `storage-live.rs` robust against rustc internal changes.)
- #126287 (Update a cranelift patch file for formatting changes.)
- #126301 (Use `tidy` to sort crate attributes for all compiler crates.)
- #126305 (Make PathBuf less Ok with adding UTF-16 then `into_string`)
- #126310 (Migrate run make prefer rlib)
- #126314 (fix RELEASES: we do not support upcasting to auto traits)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude
(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add assert_unsafe_precondition to unchecked_{add,sub,neg,mul,shl,shr} methods
(Old PR is haunted, opening a new one. See #117494 for previous discussion.)
This ensures that these preconditions are actually checked in debug mode, and hopefully should let people know if they messed up. I've also replaced the calls (I could find) in the code that use these intrinsics directly with those that use these methods, so that the asserts actually apply.
More discussions on people misusing these methods in the tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122.
Actually use TAIT instead of emulating it
`core`'s `impl_fn_for_zst` macro is just a hacky way of emulating TAIT. TAIT has become stable enough to be used [in other places](e8fbd99128/library/std/src/backtrace.rs (L431)) inside the standard library, so let's use it in `core` as well.
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
Remove feature from documentation examples
Add rustc_const_stable attribute to stabilized functions
Update intra-doc link for `u8::is_ascii_whitespace` on `&[u8]` functions
Implement `as_chunks` with `split_at_unchecked`
We were discussing various ways to do [this on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/273541522815713281/1236946363120619521), and in the process I noticed that <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1P16P37Go> is emitting a panic path inside `as_chunks`. It optimizes out in release, but we could just not do that in the first place.
We're already doing unsafe code that depends on this value being calculated correctly, so might as well call `split_at_unchecked` instead of `split_at`.
Use `unchecked_sub` in `split_at`
LLVM currently isn't figuring it out on its own, even in the checked version where it hypothetically could.
Before: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/PEY38YrKs>
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub i64 %x.1, %n
```
After:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub nuw i64 %x.1, %n
```
This is not using the wrapper because there's already a ubcheck covering it, so I don't want this to get a second one once #121571 lands.
---
This is basically the same as #108763, since `split_at` is essentially doing two `get_unchecked`s.
Stabilize `split_at_checked`
Closes#119128
For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
Implementation note: The most probable place for users to find
the documentation is at https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/slice/trait.SliceIndex.html
On that page, documentation added to specific methods will not
be visible. As such, I opted to add the comments to the impl blocks
directly.
Helps with #121568.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Stabilize slice_split_at_unchecked
Greetings!
I took the opportunity, and I tried to stabilize the `slice_split_at_unchecked` feature. I followed the guidelines, and I hope everything was done correctly 🤞 .
Closes#76014
Add slice::try_range
This adds a fallible version of the unstable `slice::range` (tracking: #76393) which is highly requested in the tracking issue.
Hoping this can slide by without an ACP (since the feature is already being tracked), but let me know otherwise.
align_offset, align_to: no longer allow implementations to spuriously fail to align
For a long time, we have allowed `align_offset` to fail to compute a properly aligned offset, and `align_to` to return a smaller-than-maximal "middle slice". This was done to cover the implementation of `align_offset` in const-eval and Miri. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420 for more background. For about the same amount of time, this has caused confusion and surprise, where people didn't realize they have to write their code to be defensive against `align_offset` failures.
Another way to put this is: the specification is effectively non-deterministic, and non-determinism is hard to test for -- in particular if the implementation everyone uses to test always produces the same reliable result, and nobody expects it to be non-deterministic to begin with.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117840, Miri has stopped making use of this liberty in the spec; it now always behaves like rustc. That only leaves const-eval as potential motivation for this behavior. I do not think this is sufficient motivation. Currently, none of the relevant functions are stably const: `align_offset` is unstably const, `align_to` is not const at all. I propose that if we ever want to make these const-stable, we just accept the fact that they can behave differently at compile-time vs at run-time. This is not the end of the world, and it seems to be much less surprising to programmers than unexpected non-determinism. (Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3352.)
`@thomcc` has repeatedly made it clear that they strongly dislike the non-determinism in align_offset, so I expect they will support this. `@oli-obk,` what do you think? Also, whom else should we involve? The primary team responsible is clearly libs-api, so I will nominate this for them. However, allowing const-evaluated code to behave different from run-time code is t-lang territory. The thing is, this is not stabilizing anything t-lang-worthy immediately, but it still does make a decision we will be bound to: if we accept this change, then
- either `align_offset`/`align_to` can never be called in const fn,
- or we allow compile-time behavior to differ from run-time behavior.
So I will nominate for t-lang as well, with the question being: are you okay with accepting either of these outcomes (without committing to which one, just accepting that it has to be one of them)? This closes the door to "have `align_offset` and `align_to` at compile-time and also always have compile-time behavior match run-time behavior".
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420
Operations such as starts_with, ends_with, strip_prefix and strip_suffix
can be either strict (do not consider a slice to be a prefix/suffix of
itself) or not. In Rust's case, they are not strict. Add a few phrases to
the documentation to clarify this.
Add examples for some methods on slices
Adds some examples to some methods on slice.
`is_empty` didn't have an example for an empty slice, even though `str` and the collections all have one, so I added that in.
`first_mut` and `last_mut` didn't have an example for what happens when the slice is empty, whereas `first` and `last` do, so I added that too.
