arithmetic
If `max_digits.is_some()`, then we know we are parsing a `u8` or `u16`
because `read_number` is only called with `Some(3)` or `Some(4)`. Both
types fit well within a `u32` without risk of overflow. Thus, we can use
plain arithmetic to avoid extra instructions from `checked_mul` and
`checked_add`.
Rename MaybeUninit::write_slice
A step to push #79995 forward.
https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/122 also suggested to make them inherent methods, but they can't be — they'd conflict with slice's regular methods.
Add Ipv6Addr::is_ipv4_mapped
This change consists of cherry-picking the content from the original PR[1], which got closed due to inactivity, and applying the following changes:
* Resolving merge conflicts (obviously)
* Linked to to_ipv4_mapped instead of to_ipv4 in the documentation (seems more appropriate)
* Added the must_use and rustc_const_unstable attributes the original didn't have
I think it's a reasonably useful method to have.
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86490
This change consists of cherry-picking the content from the original
PR[1], which got closed due to inactivity, and applying the following
changes:
* Resolving merge conflicts (obviously)
* Linked to to_ipv4_mapped instead of to_ipv4 in the documentation (seems
more appropriate)
* Added the must_use and rustc_const_unstable attributes the original
didn't have
I think it's a reasonably useful method.
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86490
Derive `Ord`, `PartialOrd` and `Hash` for `SocketAddr*`
Fixes#116711
The main pain of this PR is to fix the buggy impl of `Ord` for `SocketAddrV6`, which ignored half of the fields (while `PartialEq` is derived):
4603f0b8af/library/core/src/net/socket_addr.rs (L99-L106)4603f0b8af/library/core/src/net/socket_addr.rs (L676)
For me it looks like a simple copy-paste error made in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72239 (copy from v4 impl) (cc `@hch12907),` as I don't see this behavior being mentioned anywhere on the PR and it also does not respect `cmp` trait "rules". I also do not see any reasons for those impls to _not_ be derived.
It's a shame we did not notice this for 28 versions/3 years. I guess this is a bug fix, but I'm not sure what the process here should be.
r? libs
Stabilize `{IpAddr, Ipv6Addr}::to_canonical`
Make `IpAddr::to_canonical` and `IpV6Addr::to_canonical` stable (+const), as well as const stabilize `Ipv6Addr::to_ipv4_mapped`.
Newly stable API:
```rust
impl IpAddr {
// Newly stable under `ip_to_canonical`
const fn to_canonical(&self) -> IpAddr;
}
impl Ipv6Addr {
// Newly stable under `ip_to_canonical`
const fn to_canonical(&self) -> IpAddr;
// Already stable, this makes it const stable under
// `const_ipv6_to_ipv4_mapped`
const fn to_ipv4_mapped(&self) -> Option<Ipv4Addr>
}
```
These stabilize a subset of the following tracking issues:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27709
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76205
Stabilization of all methods under the `ip` gate was attempted once at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66584 then again at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76098. These were not successful because there are still unknowns about `is_documentation` `is_benchmarking` and similar; `to_canonical` is much more straightforward.
I have looked and could not find any known issues with `to_canonical`. These were added in 2021 in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87708
cc implementor ``@the8472``
r? libs-api
``@rustbot`` label +T-libs-api +needs-fcp
Make `IpAddr::to_canonical` and `IpV6Addr::to_canonical` stable, as well as
const stabilize `Ipv6Addr::to_ipv4_mapped`.
Newly stable API:
impl IpAddr {
// Now stable under `ip_to_canonical`
const fn to_canonical(&self) -> IpAddr;
}
impl Ipv6Addr {
// Now stable under `ip_to_canonical`
const fn to_canonical(&self) -> IpAddr;
// Already stable, this makes it const stable under
// `const_ipv6_to_ipv4_mapped`
const fn to_ipv4_mapped(&self) -> Option<Ipv4Addr>
}
These stabilize a subset of the following tracking issues:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27709
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76205
