Make useless_ptr_null_checks smarter about some std functions
This teaches the `useless_ptr_null_checks` lint that some std functions can't ever return null pointers, because they need to point to valid data, get references as input, etc.
This is achieved by introducing an `#[rustc_never_returns_null_ptr]` attribute and adding it to these std functions (gated behind bootstrap `cfg_attr`).
Later on, the attribute could maybe be used to tell LLVM that the returned pointer is never null. I don't expect much impact of that though, as the functions are pretty shallow and usually the input data is already never null.
Follow-up of PR #113657Fixes#114442
* remove `impl Provider for Error`
* rename `Demand` to `Request`
* update docstrings to focus on the conceptual API provided by `Request`
* move `core::any::{request_ref, request_value}` functions into `core::error`
* move `core::any::tag`, `core::any::Request`, an `core::any::TaggedOption` into `core::error`
* replace `provide_any` feature name w/ `error_generic_member_access`
* move `core::error::request_{ref,value} tests into core::tests::error module
* update unit and doc tests
Stabilize const-weak-new
This is a fairly uncontroversial library stabilization, so I'm going ahead and proposing it to ride the trains to stable.
This stabilizes the following APIs, which are defined to be non-allocating constructors.
```rust
// alloc::rc
impl<T> Weak<T> {
pub const fn new() -> Weak<T>;
}
// alloc::sync
impl<T> Weak<T> {
pub const fn new() -> Weak<T>;
}
```
Closes#95091
``@rustbot`` modify labels: +needs-fcp
Bump its stabilization version several times along
the way to accommodate changes in release processes.
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
Co-authored-by: Trevor Gross <t.gross35@gmail.com>
enable `rust_2018_idioms` lint group for doctests
With this change, `rust_2018_idioms` lint group will be enabled for compiler/libstd doctests.
Resolves#106086Resolves#99144
Signed-off-by: ozkanonur <work@onurozkan.dev>
Add `Arc::into_inner` for safely discarding `Arc`s without calling the destructor on the inner type.
ACP: rust-lang/libs-team#162
Reviving #79665.
I want to get this merged this time; this does not contain changes (apart from very minor changes in comments/docs).
See #79665 for further description of the PR. The only “unresolved” points that led to that PR being closed, AFAICT, were
* The desire to also implement a `Rc::into_inner` function
* however, this can very well also happen as a subsequent PR
* Possible need for further discussion on the naming “`into_inner`” (?)
* `into_inner` seems fine to me; also, this PR introduces unstable API, and names can be changed later, too
* ~~I don't know if a tracking issue for the feature flag is supposed to be opened before or after this PR gets merged (if *before*, then I can add the issue number to the `#[unstable…]` attribute)~~ There is a [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106894) now.
I say “unresolved” in quotation marks because from my point of view, if reviewers agree, the PR can be merged immediately and as-is :-)
Loosen the bound on the Debug implementation of Weak.
Both `rc::Weak<T>` and `sync::Weak<T>` currently require `T: Debug` in their own `Debug` implementations, but they don't currently use it; they only ever print a fixed string.
A general implementation of Debug for Weak that actually attempts to upgrade and rely on the contents is unlikely in the future because it may have unbounded recursion in the presence of reference cycles, which Weak is commonly used in. (This was the justification for why the current implementation [was implemented the way it is](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/19388/commits/f0976e2cf3f6b0027f118b791e0888b29fbb41a7)).
When I brought it up [on the forum](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/could-the-bound-on-weak-debug-be-relaxed/15504), it was suggested that, even if an implementation is specialized in the future that relies on the data stored within the Weak, it would likely rely on specialization anyway, and could therefore easily specialize on the Debug bound as well.
Clarify and restrict when `{Arc,Rc}::get_unchecked_mut` is allowed.
(Tracking issue for `{Arc,Rc}::get_unchecked_mut`: #63292)
(I'm using `Rc` in this comment, but it applies for `Arc` all the same).
As currently documented, `Rc::get_unchecked_mut` can lead to unsoundness when multiple `Rc`/`Weak` pointers to the same allocation exist. The current documentation only requires that other `Rc`/`Weak` pointers to the same allocation "must not be dereferenced for the duration of the returned borrow". This can lead to unsoundness in (at least) two ways: variance, and `Rc<str>`/`Rc<[u8]>` aliasing. ([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=d7e2d091c389f463d121630ab0a37320)).
This PR changes the documentation of `Rc::get_unchecked_mut` to restrict usage to when all `Rc<T>`/`Weak<T>` have the exact same `T` (including lifetimes). I believe this is sufficient to prevent unsoundness, while still allowing `get_unchecked_mut` to be called on an aliased `Rc` as long as the safety contract is upheld by the caller.
## Alternatives
* A less strict, but still sound alternative would be to say that the caller must only write values which are valid for all aliased `Rc`/`Weak` inner types. (This was [mentioned](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63292#issuecomment-568284090) in the tracking issue). This may be too complicated to clearly express in the documentation.
* A more strict alternative would be to say that there must not be any aliased `Rc`/`Weak` pointers, i.e. it is required that get_mut would return `Some(_)`. (This was also mentioned in the tracking issue). There is at least one codebase that this would cause to become unsound ([here](be5a164d77/src/memtable.rs (L166)), where additional locking is used to ensure unique access to an aliased `Rc<T>`; I saw this because it was linked on the tracking issue).
Document the conditional existence of `alloc::sync` and `alloc::task`.
`alloc` declares
```rust
#[cfg(target_has_atomic = "ptr")]
pub mod sync;
```
but there is no public documentation of this condition. This PR fixes that, so that users of `alloc` can understand how to make their code compile everywhere `alloc` does, if they are writing a library with impls for `Arc`.
The wording is copied from `std::sync::atomic::AtomicPtr`, with additional advice on how to `#[cfg]` for it.
I feel quite uncertain about whether the paragraph I added to `Arc`'s documentation should actually be there, as it is a distraction for anyone using `std`. On the other hand, maybe more reminders that no_std exists would benefit the ecosystem.
Note: `target_has_atomic` is [stabilized](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32976) but [not yet documented in the reference](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1171).
