Add `impl<T> FromIterator<T> for Arc/Rc<[T]>`
Add implementations of `FromIterator<T> for Arc/Rc<[T]>` with symmetrical logic.
This also takes advantage of specialization in the case of iterators with known length (`TrustedLen`) to elide the final allocation/copying from a `Vec<T>` into `Rc<[T]>` because we can allocate the space for the `Rc<[T]>` directly when the size is known. This is the primary motivation and why this is to be preferred over `iter.collect::<Vec<_>>().into(): Rc<[T]>`.
Moreover, this PR does some refactoring in some places.
r? @RalfJung for the code
cc @alexcrichton from T-libs
It is unclear if accessing an integer after `drop_in_place` has been
called on it is undefined behaviour or not, as demonstrated by the
discussion in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60766#pullrequestreview-243414222.
Avoid these uncertainties by using String which frees memory in its
`drop_in_place` to make sure this is undefined behaviour. The message in
the docs should be to watch out and not access the data after that, not
discussing when one maybe could get away with it O:-).
Implement Weak::{strong_count, weak_count}
The counters are also useful on `Weak`, not just on strong references (`Rc` or `Arc`).
In situations where there are still strong references around, you can also get these counts by temporarily upgrading and adjusting the values accordingly. Using the methods introduced here is simpler to do, less error-prone (since you can't forget to adjust the counts), can also be used when no strong references are around anymore, and might be more efficient due to not having to temporarily create an `Rc`.
This is mainly useful in assertions or tests of complex data structures. Data structures might have internal invariants that make them the sole owner of a `Weak` pointer, and an assertion on the weak count could be used to ensure that this indeed happens as expected. Due to the presence of `Weak::upgrade`, the `strong_count` becomes less useful, but it still seems worthwhile to mirror the API of `Rc`.
TODO:
* [X] Tracking issue - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57977
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50158
Pin stabilization
This implements the changes suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55766#issue-378417538 and stabilizes the `pin` feature. @alexcrichton also listed several "blockers" in that issue, but then in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55766#issuecomment-445074980) mentioned that they're more "TODO items":
> In that vein I think it's fine for a stabilization PR to be posted at any time now with FCP lapsed for a week or so now. The final points about self/pin/pinned can be briefly discussed there (if even necessary, they could be left as the proposal above).
Let's settle these last bits here and get this thing stabilized! :)
r? @alexcrichton
cc @withoutboats
deny intra-doc link resolution failures in libstd
Fixes#56693.
Until we land a fix for the underlying issue (#56922), we can at least fix the failures in libstd so they don't propagate to downstream crates.
This lets you write methods using `self: Rc<Self>`, `self: Arc<Self>`, `self: Pin<&mut Self>`, `self: Pin<Box<Self>`, and other combinations involving `Pin` and another stdlib receiver type, without needing the `arbitrary_self_types`. Other user-created receiver types can be used, but they still require the feature flag to use.
This is implemented by introducing a new trait, `Receiver`, which the method receiver's type must implement if the `arbitrary_self_types` feature is not enabled. To keep composed receiver types such as `&Arc<Self>` unstable, the receiver type is also required to implement `Deref<Target=Self>` when the feature flag is not enabled.
This lets you use `self: Rc<Self>` and `self: Arc<Self>` in stable Rust, which was not allowed previously. It was agreed that they would be stabilized in #55786. `self: Pin<&Self>` and other pinned receiver types do not require the `arbitrary_self_types` feature, but they cannot be used on stable because `Pin` still requires the `pin` feature.
Rename `CoerceSized` to `DispatchFromDyn`, and reverse the direction so that, for example, you write
```
impl<T: Unsize<U>, U> DispatchFromDyn<*const U> for *const T {}
```
instead of
```
impl<T: Unsize<U>, U> DispatchFromDyn<*const T> for *const U {}
```
this way the trait is really just a subset of `CoerceUnsized`.
The checks in object_safety.rs are updated for the new trait, and some documentation and method names in there are updated for the new trait name — e.g. `receiver_is_coercible` is now called `receiver_is_dispatchable`. Since the trait now works in the opposite direction, some code had to updated here for that too.
I did not update the error messages for invalid `CoerceSized` (now `DispatchFromDyn`) implementations, except to find/replace `CoerceSized` with `DispatchFromDyn`. Will ask for suggestions in the PR thread.
