Make `num::NonZeroX::new` an unstable `const fn`
cc #53718
These require `#[feature(const_if_match)]`, meaning they must remain unstable for the time being.
Mark several functions and methods in core::cmp as #[must_use]
These functions and methods aren't mutating functions and ignoring the result of them is likely a bug in the user's code.
Don't use the word "unwrap" to describe "unwrap" methods
It's tautological, and "unwrap" is essentially Rust-specific jargon.
I was teaching a newbie some Rust, and doing the usual hand-waving about error handling using unwrap. They asked what 'unwrap' means. I said look it up in the docs. The docs read (paraphrased) "unwrap unwraps". I was embarrassed.
This changes all the Option/Result functions with unwrapping behavior to use a variation on a single description:
> "Returns the contained `Some/Ok` value [or ...]."
It also renames the closure of `Result::unwrap_or_else` to `default` for consistency with `Option`, and perhaps makes a few other small tweaks.
Previous: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/68849
Remove some unsound specializations
This removes the unsound and exploitable specializations in the standard library
* The `PartialEq` and `Hash` implementations for `RangeInclusive` are changed to avoid specialization.
* The `PartialOrd` specialization for slices now specializes on a limited set of concrete types.
* Added some tests for the soundness problems.
It's tautological, and Rust-specific Jargon.
This changes various Option/Result methods to consistently describe unwrapping
behavior using the words "return", "contain", "consume".
It also renames the closure argument of `Return::unwrap_or_else` to `default` to
be consistent with `Option`.
Mark fn map_or() as eagerly evaluated.
In the docs for option.rs and result.rs, it is noted for all *_or()
functions that they are eagerly evaluated, except for the map_or()
function.
This commit adds this missing documentation to the two files.
Closes#68866
In the docs for option.rs and result.rs, it is noted for all *_or()
functions that they are eagerly evaluated, except for the map_or()
function.
This commit adds this missing documentation to the two files.
Make more arithmetic functions unstably const
This is a smaller version of #66884 (thanks @9999years) that constifies many of the arithmetic functions on integer primitives from #53718 that were blocked on #49146.
This makes the following things unstably const.
- `feature = const_int_unchecked_arith`
- `intrinsics::unchecked_add`
- `intrinsics::unchecked_sub`
- `intrinsics::unchecked_mul`
- `intrinsics::unchecked_div`
- `intrinsics::unchecked_rem`
- `feature = const_checked_int_methods`
- `checked_add`
- `checked_sub`
- `checked_mul`
- `checked_div` (Uses `intrinsics::unchecked_div` internally)
- `checked_rem` (Uses `intrinsics::unchecked_rem` internally)
- `checked_neg`
- `checked_shl`
- `checked_shr`
- `checked_abs`
- `feature = const_saturating_int_methods`
- `saturating_mul`
- `saturating_neg` (Uses `intrinsics::unchecked_sub` internally)
- `saturating_abs` (Uses `intrinsics::unchecked_sub` internally)
- `feature = const_wrapping_int_methods`
- `wrapping_div`
- `wrapping_rem`
- `feature = const_overflowing_int_methods`
- `overflowing_div`
- `overflowing_rem`
- `feature = const_euclidean_int_methods`
- `checked_div_euclid`
- `checked_rem_euclid`
- `wrapping_div_euclid`
- `wrapping_rem_euclid`
- `overflowing_div_euclid`
- `overflowing_rem_euclid`
Exponentiation and operations on the `NonZero` types are left to a later PR.
r? @oli-obk
cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval @rust-lang/libs
Step stage0 to bootstrap from 1.42
This also includes a commit which fixes the rustfmt downloading logic to redownload when the rustfmt channel changes, and bumps rustfmt to a more recent version.
Add `Iterator::map_while`
In `Iterator` trait there is `*_map` version of [`filter`] — [`filter_map`], however, there is no `*_map` version of [`take_while`], that can also be useful.
### Use cases
In my code, I've found that I need to iterate through iterator of `Option`s, stopping on the first `None`. So I've written code like this:
```rust
let arr = [Some(4), Some(10), None, Some(3)];
let mut iter = arr.iter()
.take_while(|x| x.is_some())
.map(|x| x.unwrap());
assert_eq!(iter.next(), Some(4));
assert_eq!(iter.next(), Some(10));
assert_eq!(iter.next(), None);
assert_eq!(iter.next(), None);
```
Thit code
1) isn't clean
2) In theory, can generate bad bytecode (I'm actually **not** sure, but I think that `unwrap` would generate additional branches with `panic!`)
The same code, but with `map_while` (in the original PR message it was named "take_while_map"):
```rust
let arr = [Some(4), Some(10), None, Some(3)];
let mut iter = arr.iter().map_while(std::convert::identity);
```
Also, `map_while` can be useful when converting something (as in [examples]).
[`filter`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.filter
[`filter_map`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.filter_map
[`take_while`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.take_while
[examples]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...WaffleLapkin:iter_take_while_map?expand=1#diff-7e57917f962fe6ffdfba51e4955ad6acR1042
Move numeric consts to associated consts step1
A subset of #67913. Implements the first step of RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2700
This PR adds the new constants as unstable constants and defines the old ones in terms of the new ones. Then fix a tiny bit of code that started having naming collisions because of the new assoc consts.
Removed a test that did not seem relevant any longer. Since doing just `u8::MIN` should now indeed be valid.
Rename `Alloc` to `AllocRef`
The allocator-wg has decided to merge this change upstream in https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-577122958.
This renames `Alloc` to `AllocRef` because types that implement `Alloc` are a reference, smart pointer, or ZSTs. It is not possible to have an allocator like `MyAlloc([u8; N])`, that owns the memory and also implements `Alloc`, since that would mean, that moving a `Vec<T, MyAlloc>` would need to correct the internal pointer, which is not possible as we don't have move constructors.
For further explanation please see https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-489464843 and the comments after that one.
Additionally it clarifies the semantics of `Clone` on an allocator. In the case of `AllocRef`, it is clear that the cloned handle still points to the same allocator instance, and that you can free data allocated from one handle with another handle.
The initial proposal was to rename `Alloc` to `AllocHandle`, but `Ref` expresses the semantics better than `Handle`. Also, the only appearance of `Handle` in `std` are for windows specific resources, which might be confusing.
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1160
Stabilize ptr::slice_from_raw_parts[_mut]
Closes#36925, the tracking issue.
Initial impl: #60667
r? @rust-lang/libs
In addition to stabilizing, I've adjusted the example of `ptr::slice_from_raw_parts` to use `slice_from_raw_parts` instead of `slice_from_raw_parts_mut`, which was unnecessary for the example as written.
Add leading_ones and trailing_ones methods to the primitive integer types
I was surprised these were missing (given that `leading_zeros` and `trailing_zeros` exist), and they seem trivial and hopefully not controversial.
Note that there's some precedent in that `count_ones` and `count_zeros` are both supported even though only one of these has an intrinsic.
I'm not sure if these need a `rustc_const_unstable` flag (the tests don't seem to mind that it's missing). I just made them const, since there's not really any reason for these to be non-const when the `_zeros` variants are const.
Note: My understanding is trivial stuff like (hopefully) this can land without an RFC, but I'm not fully sure about the process though. Questions like "when does the tracking issue get filed?", are a total mystery to me. So, any guidance is appreciated, and sorry in advance if I should have gone through some more involved process for this.
