feat(byte_sub_ptr): unstably add ptr::byte_sub_ptr
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95892).
Original PR by ``@Gankra`` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121919), I am just reviving it. The 2nd commit (with a small docs tweak) is by me.
make const_alloc_layout feature gate only about functions that are already stable
The const_alloc_layout feature gate has two kinds of functions: those that are stable, but not yet const-stable, and those that are fully unstable.
I think we should split that up. So this PR makes const_alloc_layout just about functions that are already stable but waiting for const-stability; all the other functions now have their constness guarded by the gate that also guards their regular stability.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67521
remove some unnecessary rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable
These are either unstable functions that don't need the attribute, or the attribute refers to a feature that is already stable.
Cleanup attributes around unchecked shifts and unchecked negation in const
The underlying intrinsic is marked as "safe to expose on stable", so we shouldn't need any `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(unchecked_shifts)` anywhere. However, bootstrap rustc doesn't yet have the new const stability checks, so these changes only apply under `cfg(not(bootstrap))`.
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (#95892).
Use Hacker's Delight impl in `i64::midpoint` instead of wide `i128` impl
This PR switches `i64::midpoint` and (`isize::midpoint` where `isize == i64`) to using our Hacker's Delight impl instead of wide `i128` implementation.
As LLVM seems to be outperformed by the complexity of signed 128-bits number compared to our Hacker's Delight implementation.[^1]
It doesn't seems like it's an improvement for the other sizes[^2], so we let them with the wide implementation.
[^1]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/ravE75EYj
[^2]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fzr171zKh
r? libs
Mark `str::is_char_boundary` and `str::split_at*` unstably `const`.
Tracking issues: #131516, #131518
First commit implements `const_is_char_boundary`, second commit implements `const_str_split_at` (which depends on `const_is_char_boundary`)
~~I used `const_eval_select` for `is_char_boundary` since there is a comment about optimizations that would theoretically not happen with the simple `const`-compatible version (since `slice::get` is not `const`ifiable) cc #84751. I have not checked if this code difference is still required for the optimization, so it might not be worth the code complication, but 🤷.~~
This changes `str::split_at_checked` to use a new private helper function `split_at_unchecked` (copied from `split_at_mut_unchecked`) that does pointer stuff instead of `get_unchecked`, since that is not currently `const`ifiable due to using the `SliceIndex` trait.
Lint against getting pointers from immediately dropped temporaries
Fixes#123613
## Changes:
1. New lint: `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries`. Is a generalization of `temporary_cstring_as_ptr` for more types and more ways to get a temporary.
2. `temporary_cstring_as_ptr` is removed and marked as renamed to `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries`.
3. `clippy::temporary_cstring_as_ptr` is marked as renamed to `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries`.
4. Fixed a false positive[^fp] for when the pointer is not actually dangling because of lifetime extension for function/method call arguments.
5. `core::cell::Cell` is now `rustc_diagnostic_item = "Cell"`
## Questions:
- [ ] Instead of manually checking for a list of known methods and diagnostic items, maybe add some sort of annotation to those methods in library and check for the presence of that annotation? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128985#issuecomment-2318714312
## Known limitations:
### False negatives[^fn]:
See the comments in `compiler/rustc_lint/src/dangling.rs`
1. Method calls that are not checked for:
- `temporary_unsafe_cell.get()`
- `temporary_sync_unsafe_cell.get()`
2. Ways to get a temporary that are not recognized:
- `owning_temporary.field`
- `owning_temporary[index]`
3. No checks for ref-to-ptr conversions:
- `&raw [mut] temporary`
- `&temporary as *(const|mut) _`
- `ptr::from_ref(&temporary)` and friends
[^fn]: lint **should** be emitted, but **is not**
[^fp]: lint **should not** be emitted, but **is**
Make clearer that guarantees in ABI compatibility are for Rust only
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132136#issuecomment-2439737631 -- it looks like we already had a note that I missed in my initial look here, but this goes further to emphasize the guarantees, including uplifting it to the top of the general documentation.
r? `@RalfJung`
As LLVM seems to be outperformed by the complexity of signed 128-bits
number compared to our Hacker's Delight implementation.[^1]
It doesn't seems like it's an improvement for the other sizes[^2], so we
let them with the wide implementation.
[^1]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/ravE75EYj
[^2]: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fzr171zKh
Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Round negative signed integer towards zero in `iN::midpoint`
This PR changes the implementation of `iN::midpoint` (the signed variants) to round negative signed integers **towards zero** *instead* of negative infinity as is currently the case.
This is done so that the obvious expectations[^1] of `midpoint(a, b) == midpoint(b, a)` and `midpoint(-a, -b) == -midpoint(a, b)` are true, which makes the even more obvious implementation `(a + b) / 2` always true.
The unsigned variants `uN::midpoint` (which are being [FCP-ed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131784#issuecomment-2417188117)) already rounds towards zero, so there is no consistency issue.
cc `@scottmcm`
r? `@dtolnay`
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110840#issuecomment-2336753931
Instead of towards negative infinity as is currently the case.
This done so that the obvious expectations of
`midpoint(a, b) == midpoint(b, a)` and
`midpoint(-a, -b) == -midpoint(a, b)` are true, which makes the even
more obvious implementation `(a + b) / 2` true.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110840#issuecomment-2336753931
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, all the holes mentioned above have been closed. There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to be manually marked `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to be sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked), it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or `#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]` functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding `#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No other attributes are required.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
library: consistently use American spelling for 'behavior'
We use "behavior" a lot more often than "behaviour", but some "behaviour" have even snuck into user-facing docs. This makes the spelling consistent.
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
