std: Start implementing wasm32 atomics
This commit is an initial start at implementing the standard library for
wasm32-unknown-unknown with the experimental `atomics` feature enabled. None of
these changes will be visible to users of the wasm32-unknown-unknown target
because they all require recompiling the standard library. The hope with this is
that we can get this support into the standard library and start iterating on it
in-tree to enable experimentation.
Currently there's a few components in this PR:
* Atomic fences are disabled on wasm as there's no corresponding atomic op and
it's not clear yet what the convention should be, but this will change in the
future!
* Implementations of `Mutex`, `Condvar`, and `RwLock` were all added based on
the atomic intrinsics that wasm has.
* The `ReentrantMutex` and thread-local-storage implementations panic currently
as there's no great way to get a handle on the current thread's "id" yet.
Right now the wasm32 target with atomics is unfortunately pretty unusable,
requiring a lot of manual things here and there to actually get it operational.
This will likely continue to evolve as the story for atomics and wasm unfolds,
but we also need more LLVM support for some operations like custom `global`
directives for this to work best.
Use impl_header_lifetime_elision in libcore
The feature is approved for stabilization, so let's use it to remove about 300 `'a`s.
Tracking issue for the feature: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15872
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #54564 (Add 1.29.1 release notes)
- #54567 (Include path in stamp hash for debuginfo tests)
- #54577 (rustdoc: give proc-macros their own pages)
- #54590 (std: Don't let `rust_panic` get inlined)
- #54598 (Remove useless lifetimes from `Pin` `impl`s.)
- #54604 (Added help message for `self_in_typedefs` feature gate)
- #54635 (Improve docs for std::io::Seek)
- #54645 (Compute Android gdb version in compiletest)
Introduce the partition_dedup/by/by_key methods for slices
This PR propose to add three methods to the slice type, the `partition_dedup`, `partition_dedup_by` and `partition_dedup_by_key`. The two other methods are based on `slice::partition_dedup_by`.
These methods take a mutable slice, deduplicates it and moves all duplicates to the end of it, returning two mutable slices, the first containing the deduplicated elements and the second all the duplicates unordered.
```rust
let mut slice = [1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2];
let (dedup, duplicates) = slice.partition_dedup();
assert_eq!(dedup, [1, 2, 3, 2]);
assert_eq!(duplicates, [3, 2]);
```
The benefits of adding these methods is that it is now possible to:
- deduplicate a slice without having to allocate and possibly clone elements on the heap, really useful for embedded stuff that can't allocate for example.
- not loose duplicate elements, because, when using `Vec::dedup`, duplicates elements are dropped. These methods add more flexibillity to the user.
Note that this is near a copy/paste of the `Vec::dedup_by` function, once this method is stable the goal is to replace the algorithm in `Vec` by the following.
```rust
pub fn Vec::dedup_by<F>(&mut self, same_bucket: F)
where F: FnMut(&mut T, &mut T) -> bool
{
let (dedup, _) = self.as_mut_slice().partition_dedup_by(same_bucket);
let len = dedup.len();
self.truncate(len);
}
```
This commit is an initial start at implementing the standard library for
wasm32-unknown-unknown with the experimental `atomics` feature enabled. None of
these changes will be visible to users of the wasm32-unknown-unknown target
because they all require recompiling the standard library. The hope with this is
that we can get this support into the standard library and start iterating on it
in-tree to enable experimentation.
Currently there's a few components in this PR:
* Atomic fences are disabled on wasm as there's no corresponding atomic op and
it's not clear yet what the convention should be, but this will change in the
future!
* Implementations of `Mutex`, `Condvar`, and `RwLock` were all added based on
the atomic intrinsics that wasm has.
* The `ReentrantMutex` and thread-local-storage implementations panic currently
as there's no great way to get a handle on the current thread's "id" yet.
Right now the wasm32 target with atomics is unfortunately pretty unusable,
requiring a lot of manual things here and there to actually get it operational.
This will likely continue to evolve as the story for atomics and wasm unfolds,
but we also need more LLVM support for some operations like custom `global`
directives for this to work best.
Rewrite docs for pointer methods
This takes over https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51016 by @ecstatic-morse. They did most of the work, I just did some editing.
However, I realized one problem: This updates the docs for the "free functions" in `core::ptr`, but it does not update the copies of these docs for the inherent methods of the `*const T` and `*mut T` types. These getting out-of-sync is certainly bad, but I also don't feel like copying all this stuff around. Instead, we should remove this redundancy. Any good ideas?
Simplify slice's first(_mut) and last(_mut) with get
This change makes these functions easier to read and interpret. I haven't detected any difference in performance locally.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
remove (more) CAS API from Atomic* types where not natively supported
closes#54276
In PR #51953 I made the Atomic* types available on targets like thumbv6m and
msp430 with the intention of *only* exposing the load and store API on those
types -- the rest of the API doesn't work on those targets because the are no
native instructions to implement CAS loops.
Unfortunately, it seems I didn't properly cfg away all the CAS API on those
targets, as evidenced in #54276. This PR amends the issue by removing the rest
of the CAS API.
This is technically a breaking change because *libraries* that were using this
API and were being compiled for e.g. thumbv6m-none-eabi will stop compiling.
However, using those libraries (before this change) in programs (binaries) would
lead to linking errors when compiled for e.g. thumbv6m so this change
effectively shifts a linker error in binaries to a compiler error in libraries.
On a side note: extending the Atomic API is a bit error prone because of these
non-cas targets. Unless the author of the change is aware of these targets and
properly uses `#[cfg(atomic = "cas")]` they could end up exposing new CAS API on
these targets. I can't think of a test to check that an API is not present on
some target, but we could extend the `tidy` tool to check that *all* newly added
atomic API has the `#[cfg(atomic = "cas")]` attribute unless it's whitelisted in
`tidy` then the author of the change would have to verify if the API can be used
on non-cas targets.
In any case, I'd like to plug this hole ASAP. We can revisit testing in a
follow-up issue / PR.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @mvirkkunen
define copy_within on slices
This is a safe wrapper around `ptr::copy`, for regions within a single slice. Previously, safe in-place copying was only available as a side effect of `Vec::drain`.
I've wanted this API a couple times in the past, and I figured I'd just whip up a PR to help discuss it. It's possible something like this exists elsewhere and I just missed it. It might also be a big enough addition to warrant an RFC, I'm not sure.
Duration div mul extras
Successor of #52556.
This PR adds the following `impl`s:
- `impl Mul<Duration> for u32` (to allow `10*SECOND` in addition to `SECOND*10`)
- `impl Mul<f64> for Duration` (to allow `2.5*SECOND` vs `2*SECOND + 500*MILLISECOND`)
- `impl Mul<Duration> for f64`
- `impl MulAssign<f64> for Duration`
- `impl Div<f64> for Duration`
- `impl DivAssign<f64> for Duration`
- `impl Div<Duration> for Duration` (`Output = f64`, can be useful e.g. for `duration/MINUTE`)
`f64` is chosen over `f32` to minimize rounding errors. (52 bits fraction precision vs `Duration`'s ~94 bit)
This is a safe wrapper around ptr::copy, for regions within a single
slice. Previously, safe in-place copying was only available as a side
effect of Vec::drain.
Update to a new pinning API.
~~Blocked on #53843 because of method resolution problems with new pin type.~~
@r? @cramertj
cc @RalfJung @pythonesque anyone interested in #49150
