Apply size optimizations to panic machinery and some cold functions
* std dependencies gimli and addr2line are now built with opt-level=s
* various panic-related methods and `#[cold]` methods are now marked `#[optimize(size)]`
Panics should be cold enough that it doesn't make sense to optimize them for speed. The only tradeoff here is if someone does a lot of backtrace captures (without panics) and printing then the opt-level change might impact their perf.
Seems to be the first use of the optimize attribute. Tracking issue #54882
A partial stabilization that only affects:
- AllocType<T>::new_uninit
- AllocType<T>::assume_init
- AllocType<[T]>::new_uninit_slice
- AllocType<[T]>::assume_init
where "AllocType" is Box, Rc, or Arc
Stabilize `const_waker`
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012.
For `local_waker` and `context_ext` related things, I just ~~moved them to dedicated feature gates and reused their own tracking issue (maybe it's better to open a new one later, but at least they should not be tracked under https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012 from the beginning IMO.)~~ reused their own feature gates as suggested by ``@tgross35.``
``@rustbot`` label: +T-libs-api
r? libs-api
Mark format! with must_use hint
Uses unstable feature https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94745
Part of #126475
First contribution to rust, please let me know if the blessing of tests is correct
Thanks `@bjorn3` for the help
Don't check the capacity every time (and also for `Extend` for tuples, as this is how `unzip()` is implemented).
I did this with an unsafe method on `Extend` that doesn't check for growth (`extend_one_unchecked()`). I've marked it as perma-unstable currently, although we may want to expose it in the future so collections outside of std can benefit from it. Then specialize `Extend for (A, B)` for `TrustedLen` to call it.
It may seem that an alternative way of implementing this is to have a semi-public trait (`#[doc(hidden)]` public, so collections outside of core can implement it) for `extend()` inside tuples, and specialize it from collections. However, it is impossible due to limitations of `min_specialization`.
A concern that may arise with the current approach is that implementing `extend_one_unchecked()` correctly must also incur implementing `extend_reserve()`, otherwise you can have UB. This is a somewhat non-local safety invariant. However, I believe this is fine, since to have actual UB you must have unsafe code inside your `extend_one_unchecked()` that makes incorrect assumption, *and* not implement `extend_reserve()`. I've also documented this requirement.
This is possible now that inline const blocks are stable; the idea was
even mentioned as an alternative when `uninit_array()` was added:
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a
> standard library method that will be replaceable with
> `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
Const array repetition and inline const blocks are now stable (in the
next release), so that circumstance has come to pass, and we no longer
have reason to want `uninit_array()` other than convenience. Therefore,
let’s evaluate the inconvenience by not using `uninit_array()` in
the standard library, before potentially deleting it entirely.
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126140 (Rename `std::fs::try_exists` to `std::fs::exists` and stabilize fs_try_exists)
- #126318 (Add a `x perf` command for integrating bootstrap with `rustc-perf`)
- #126552 (Remove use of const traits (and `feature(effects)`) from stdlib)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Do not allocate for ZST ThinBox (attempt 2 using const_allocate)
There's PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123184 which avoids allocation for ZST ThinBox.
That PR has an issue with unsoundness with padding in `MaybeUninit` (see comments in that PR). Also that PR relies on `Freeze` trait.
This PR is much simpler implementation which does not have this problem, but it uses `const_allocate` feature.
`@oli-obk` suggested that `const_allocate` should not be used for that feature. But I like how easy it to do this feature with `const_allocate`. Maybe it's OK to use `const_allocate` while `ThinBox` is unstable? Or, well, we can abandon this PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
There's PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123184
which avoids allocation for ZST ThinBox.
That PR has an issue with unsoundness with misuse of `MaybeUninit`
(see comments in that PR).
This PR is much simpler implementation which does not have this
problem, but it uses `const_allocate` feature.
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
Implement `Vec::pop_if`
This PR adds `Vec::pop_if` to the public API, behind the `vec_pop_if` feature.
```rust
impl<T> Vec<T> {
pub fn pop_if<F>(&mut self, f: F) -> Option<T>
where F: FnOnce(&mut T) -> bool;
}
```
Tracking issue: #122741
## Open questions
- [ ] Should the first unit test be split up?
- [ ] I don't see any guidance on ordering of methods in impl blocks, should I move the method elsewhere?
Stabilize associated type bounds (RFC 2289)
This PR stabilizes associated type bounds, which were laid out in [RFC 2289]. This gives us a shorthand to express nested type bounds that would otherwise need to be expressed with nested `impl Trait` or broken into several `where` clauses.
### What are we stabilizing?
We're stabilizing the associated item bounds syntax, which allows us to put bounds in associated type position within other bounds, i.e. `T: Trait<Assoc: Bounds...>`. See [RFC 2289] for motivation.
In all position, the associated type bound syntax expands into a set of two (or more) bounds, and never anything else (see "How does this differ[...]" section for more info).
Associated type bounds are stabilized in four positions:
* **`where` clauses (and APIT)** - This is equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses. For example, `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>` is equivalent to `where T: Trait, <T as Trait>::Assoc: Bound`.
* **Supertraits** - Similar to above, `trait CopyIterator: Iterator<Item: Copy> {}`. This is almost equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses; however, the bound on the associated item is implied whenever the trait is used. See #112573/#112629.
* **Associated type item bounds** - This allows constraining the *nested* rigid projections that are associated with a trait's associated types. e.g. `trait Trait { type Assoc: Trait2<Assoc2: Copy>; }`.
* **opaque item bounds (RPIT, TAIT)** - This allows constraining associated types that are associated with the opaque without having to *name* the opaque. For example, `impl Iterator<Item: Copy>` defines an iterator whose item is `Copy` without having to actually name that item bound.
The latter three are not expressible in surface Rust (though for associated type item bounds, this will change in #120752, which I don't believe should block this PR), so this does represent a slight expansion of what can be expressed in trait bounds.
### How does this differ from the RFC?
Compared to the RFC, the current implementation *always* desugars associated type bounds to sets of `ty::Clause`s internally. Specifically, it does *not* introduce a position-dependent desugaring as laid out in [RFC 2289], and in particular:
* It does *not* desugar to anonymous associated items in associated type item bounds.
* It does *not* desugar to nested RPITs in RPIT bounds, nor nested TAITs in TAIT bounds.
This position-dependent desugaring laid out in the RFC existed simply to side-step limitations of the trait solver, which have mostly been fixed in #120584. The desugaring laid out in the RFC also added unnecessary complication to the design of the feature, and introduces its own limitations to, for example:
* Conditionally lowering to nested `impl Trait` in certain positions such as RPIT and TAIT means that we inherit the limitations of RPIT/TAIT, namely lack of support for higher-ranked opaque inference. See this code example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120752#issuecomment-1979412531.
* Introducing anonymous associated types makes traits no longer object safe, since anonymous associated types are not nameable, and all associated types must be named in `dyn` types.
This last point motivates why this PR is *not* stabilizing support for associated type bounds in `dyn` types, e.g, `dyn Assoc<Item: Bound>`. Why? Because `dyn` types need to have *concrete* types for all associated items, this would necessitate a distinct lowering for associated type bounds, which seems both complicated and unnecessary compared to just requiring the user to write `impl Trait` themselves. See #120719.
### Implementation history:
Limited to the significant behavioral changes and fixes and relevant PRs, ping me if I left something out--
* #57428
* #108063
* #110512
* #112629
* #120719
* #120584Closes#52662
[RFC 2289]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2289-associated-type-bounds.html
Those libraries are build with `-C panic=unwind` and is expected to
be linkable to `-C panic=abort` library. To ensure unsoundness
compiler needs to prevent a `C-unwind` call to exist, as doing so may leak
foreign exceptions into `-C panic=abort`.
