Implement `as_chunks` with `split_at_unchecked`
We were discussing various ways to do [this on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/273541522815713281/1236946363120619521), and in the process I noticed that <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1P16P37Go> is emitting a panic path inside `as_chunks`. It optimizes out in release, but we could just not do that in the first place.
We're already doing unsafe code that depends on this value being calculated correctly, so might as well call `split_at_unchecked` instead of `split_at`.
Use `unchecked_sub` in `split_at`
LLVM currently isn't figuring it out on its own, even in the checked version where it hypothetically could.
Before: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/PEY38YrKs>
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub i64 %x.1, %n
```
After:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub nuw i64 %x.1, %n
```
This is not using the wrapper because there's already a ubcheck covering it, so I don't want this to get a second one once #121571 lands.
---
This is basically the same as #108763, since `split_at` is essentially doing two `get_unchecked`s.
Stabilize `split_at_checked`
Closes#119128
For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Stabilize slice_split_at_unchecked
Greetings!
I took the opportunity, and I tried to stabilize the `slice_split_at_unchecked` feature. I followed the guidelines, and I hope everything was done correctly 🤞 .
Closes#76014
Add slice::try_range
This adds a fallible version of the unstable `slice::range` (tracking: #76393) which is highly requested in the tracking issue.
Hoping this can slide by without an ACP (since the feature is already being tracked), but let me know otherwise.
align_offset, align_to: no longer allow implementations to spuriously fail to align
For a long time, we have allowed `align_offset` to fail to compute a properly aligned offset, and `align_to` to return a smaller-than-maximal "middle slice". This was done to cover the implementation of `align_offset` in const-eval and Miri. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420 for more background. For about the same amount of time, this has caused confusion and surprise, where people didn't realize they have to write their code to be defensive against `align_offset` failures.
Another way to put this is: the specification is effectively non-deterministic, and non-determinism is hard to test for -- in particular if the implementation everyone uses to test always produces the same reliable result, and nobody expects it to be non-deterministic to begin with.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117840, Miri has stopped making use of this liberty in the spec; it now always behaves like rustc. That only leaves const-eval as potential motivation for this behavior. I do not think this is sufficient motivation. Currently, none of the relevant functions are stably const: `align_offset` is unstably const, `align_to` is not const at all. I propose that if we ever want to make these const-stable, we just accept the fact that they can behave differently at compile-time vs at run-time. This is not the end of the world, and it seems to be much less surprising to programmers than unexpected non-determinism. (Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3352.)
`@thomcc` has repeatedly made it clear that they strongly dislike the non-determinism in align_offset, so I expect they will support this. `@oli-obk,` what do you think? Also, whom else should we involve? The primary team responsible is clearly libs-api, so I will nominate this for them. However, allowing const-evaluated code to behave different from run-time code is t-lang territory. The thing is, this is not stabilizing anything t-lang-worthy immediately, but it still does make a decision we will be bound to: if we accept this change, then
- either `align_offset`/`align_to` can never be called in const fn,
- or we allow compile-time behavior to differ from run-time behavior.
So I will nominate for t-lang as well, with the question being: are you okay with accepting either of these outcomes (without committing to which one, just accepting that it has to be one of them)? This closes the door to "have `align_offset` and `align_to` at compile-time and also always have compile-time behavior match run-time behavior".
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420
Operations such as starts_with, ends_with, strip_prefix and strip_suffix
can be either strict (do not consider a slice to be a prefix/suffix of
itself) or not. In Rust's case, they are not strict. Add a few phrases to
the documentation to clarify this.
Add examples for some methods on slices
Adds some examples to some methods on slice.
`is_empty` didn't have an example for an empty slice, even though `str` and the collections all have one, so I added that in.
`first_mut` and `last_mut` didn't have an example for what happens when the slice is empty, whereas `first` and `last` do, so I added that too.
Clarify ambiguity in select_nth_unstable docs
Original docs for `select_nth_unstable` family of functions were ambiguous as to whether "the element at `index`" was the element at `index` before the function reordered the elements or after the function reordered the elements.
The most helpful change in this PR is to change the given examples to make this absolutely clear. Before, "the element at `index`" was the same value before and after the reordering, so it didn't help disambiguate the meaning. I've changed the example for `select_nth_unstable` and `select_nth_unstable_by` so that "the element at `index`" is different before and after the reordering, which clears up the ambiguity. The function `select_nth_unstable_by_key` already had an example that was unambiguous.
In an attempt to clear up the ambiguity from the get-go, I've added a bit of redundancy to the text. Now the docs refer to "the element at `index` *after the reordering*".
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Refactor the if/else checking on cmp::Ordering variants to a
"branchless" reassignment of left and right. This change results
in fewer branches and instructions.
Use `assert_unchecked` instead of `assume` intrinsic in the standard library
Now that a public wrapper for the `assume` intrinsic exists, we can use it in the standard library.
CC #119131
Use `bool` instead of `PartiolOrd` as return value of the comparison closure in `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by`
Changes the function signature of the closure given to `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by` to return a `bool` instead of a `PartiolOrd` as suggested by the libs-api team here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53485#issuecomment-1766411980.
This means these functions now return true if the closure returns true for all the pairs of values.
