Add inline attr to CString::into_inner so it can optimize out NonNull checks
It seems that currently if you convert any of the standard library's container to a pointer and then to a NonNull pointer, all will optimize out the NULL check except `CString`(https://godbolt.org/z/YPKW9G5xn),
because for some reason `CString::into_inner` isn't inlined even though it's a private function that should compile into a simple `mov` instruction.
Adding a simple `#[inline]` attribute solves this, code example:
```rust
use std::ffi::CString;
use std::ptr::NonNull;
pub fn cstring_nonull(mut n: CString) -> NonNull<i8> {
NonNull::new(CString::into_raw(n)).unwrap()
}
```
assembly before:
```asm
__ZN3wat14cstring_nonull17h371c755bcad76294E:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset %rbp, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register %rbp
callq __ZN3std3ffi5c_str7CString10into_inner17h28ece07b276e2878E
testq %rax, %rax
je LBB0_2
popq %rbp
retq
LBB0_2:
leaq l___unnamed_1(%rip), %rdi
leaq l___unnamed_2(%rip), %rdx
movl $43, %esi
callq __ZN4core9panicking5panic17h92a83fa9085a8f73E
.cfi_endproc
.section __TEXT,__const
l___unnamed_1:
.ascii "called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value"
l___unnamed_3:
.ascii "wat.rs"
.section __DATA,__const
.p2align 3
l___unnamed_2:
.quad l___unnamed_3
.asciz "\006\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\006\000\000\000(\000\000"
```
Assembly after:
```asm
__ZN3wat14cstring_nonull17h9645eb9341fb25d7E:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset %rbp, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register %rbp
movq %rdi, %rax
popq %rbp
retq
.cfi_endproc
```
(Related discussion on zulip: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/NonNull.20From.3CBox.3CT.3E.3E)
Remove Iterator #[rustc_on_unimplemented]s that no longer apply.
Now that `IntoIterator` is implemented for arrays, all the `rustc_on_unimplemented` for arrays of ranges (e.g. `for _ in [1..3] {}`) no longer apply, since they are now valid Rust.
Separated these from #85670, because we should discuss a potential new (clippy?) lint for these.
Until Rust 1.52, `for _ in [1..3] {}` produced:
```
error[E0277]: `[std::ops::Range<{integer}>; 1]` is not an iterator
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
2 | for _ in [1..3] {}
| ^^^^^^ if you meant to iterate between two values, remove the square brackets
|
= help: the trait `std::iter::Iterator` is not implemented for `[std::ops::Range<{integer}>; 1]`
= note: `[start..end]` is an array of one `Range`; you might have meant to have a `Range` without the brackets: `start..end`
= note: required by `std::iter::IntoIterator::into_iter`
```
But in Rust 1.53 and later, it compiles fine. It iterates over the array by value, for one iteration with the element `1..3`.
This is probably a mistake, which is no longer caught. Should we have a lint for it? Should Clippy have a lint for it?
cc ```@estebank``` ```@flip1995```
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84513
Update cc
Recent commits have improved `cc`'s finding of MSVC tools on Windows. In particular it should help to address these issues: #83043 and #43468
While stdlib implementations of the unchecked methods require unchecked
math, there is no reason to gate it behind this for external users. The
reasoning for a separate `step_trait_ext` feature is unclear, and as
such has been merged as well.
Add `TrustedRandomAccess` specialization for `Vec::extend()`
This should do roughly the same as the `TrustedLen` specialization but result in less IR by using `__iterator_get_unchecked`
instead of `Iterator::for_each`
Conflicting specializations are manually prioritized by grouping them under yet another helper trait.
Fix typo in core::array::IntoIter comment
Saw a small typo reading some internal comments and decided to just throw this up to fix it for future readers.
Remove num_as_ne_bytes feature
From the discussion in #76976, it is determined that eventual results of the safe transmute work as a more general mechanism will let these conversions happen in safe code without needing specialized methods.
Merging this PR closes#76976 and resolves#64464. Several T-libs members have raised their opinion that it doesn't pull its weight as a standalone method, and so we should not track it as a specific thing to add.
fix `matches!` and `assert_matches!` on edition 2021
Previously this code failed to compile on edition 2021. [(Playground)](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=53960f2f051f641777b9e458da747707)
```rust
fn main() {
matches!((), ());
}
```
```
Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error: `$pattern:pat` may be followed by `|`, which is not allowed for `pat` fragments
|
= note: allowed there are: `=>`, `,`, `=`, `if` or `in`
error: aborting due to previous error
error: could not compile `playground`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
Demote `ControlFlow::{from|into}_try` to `pub(crate)`
They have mediocre names and non-obvious semantics, so personally I don't think they're worth trying to stabilize, and thus might as well just be internal (they're used for convenience in iterator adapters), not something shown in the rustdocs.
I don't think anyone actually wanted to use them outside `core` -- they just got made public-but-unstable along with the whole type in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76204 that promoted `LoopState` from an internal type to the exposed `ControlFlow` type.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75744, the tracking issue they mention.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/85608, the PR where I'm proposing stabilizing the type.
Fix pointer provenance in <[T]>::copy_within
Previously the `self.as_mut_ptr()` invalidated the pointer created by the first `self.as_ptr()`. This also triggered miri when run with `-Zmiri-track-raw-pointers`
doc: clarify Mutex::try_lock, etc. errors
Clarify error returns from Mutex::try_lock, RwLock::try_read,
RwLock::try_write to make it more obvious that both poisoning
and the lock being already locked are possible errors.
Weak's type parameter may dangle on drop
Way back in 34076bc0c9, #\[may_dangle\] was added to Rc\<T\> and Arc\<T\>'s Drop impls. That appears to have been because a test added in #28929 used Arc and Rc with dangling references at drop time. However, Weak was not covered by that test, and therefore no #\[may_dangle\] was forced to be added at the time.
As far as dropping, Weak has *even less need* to interact with the T than Rc and Arc do. Roughly speaking #\[may_dangle\] describes generic parameters that the outer type's Drop impl does not interact with except by possibly dropping them; no other interaction (such as trait method calls on the generic type) is permissible. It's clear this applies to Rc's and Arc's drop impl, which sometimes drop T but otherwise do not interact with one. It applies *even more* to Weak. Dropping a Weak cannot ever cause T's drop impl to run. Either there are strong references still in existence, in which case better not drop the T. Or there are no strong references still in existence, in which case the T would already have been dropped previously by the drop of the last strong count.
Better English for documenting when to use unimplemented!()
I don't think "plan of using" is correct here. I considered "plan on using" but eventually decided "plan to use" is better.
Bump bootstrap compiler to beta 1.53.0
This PR bumps the bootstrap compiler to version 1.53.0 beta, as part of our usual release process (this was supposed to be Wednesday's step, but creating the beta release took longer than expected).
The PR also includes the "Bootstrap: skip rustdoc fingerprint for building docs" commit, see the reasoning [on Zulip](https://zulip-archive.rust-lang.org/241545trelease/88450153betabootstrap.html).
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Extend `rustc_on_implemented` to improve more `?` error messages
`_Self` could match the generic definition; this adds that functionality for matching the generic definition of type parameters too.
Your advice welcome on the wording of all these messages, and which things belong in the message/label/note.
r? `@estebank`
