docs: remove repetition in `is_numeric` function docs
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99628 we introduce new docs for the `is_numeric` function, and this is a follow-up PR that removes some unnecessary repetition that may be introduced by some rebasing.
`@rustbot` r? `@joshtriplett`
Add back Send and Sync impls on ChunksMut iterators
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100014
These were accidentally removed in #94247 because the representation was changed from `&mut [T]` to `*mut T`, which has `!Send + !Sync`.
do not claim that transmute is like memcpy
Saying transmute is like memcpy is not a well-formed statement, since memcpy is by-ref whereas transmute is by-val. The by-val nature of transmute inherently means that padding is lost along the way. (This is not specific to transmute, this is how all by-value operations work.) So adjust the docs to clarify this aspect.
Cc `@workingjubilee`
Currently we skip deriving `PartialEq::ne` for C-like (fieldless) enums
and empty structs, thus reyling on the default `ne`. This behaviour is
unnecessarily conservative, because the `PartialEq` docs say this:
> Implementations must ensure that eq and ne are consistent with each other:
>
> `a != b` if and only if `!(a == b)` (ensured by the default
> implementation).
This means that the default implementation (`!(a == b)`) is always good
enough. So this commit changes things such that `ne` is never derived.
The motivation for this change is that not deriving `ne` reduces compile
times and binary sizes.
Observable behaviour may change if a user has defined a type `A` with an
inconsistent `PartialEq` and then defines a type `B` that contains an
`A` and also derives `PartialEq`. Such code is already buggy and
preserving bug-for-bug compatibility isn't necessary.
Two side-effects of the change:
- There is only one error message produced for types where `PartialEq`
cannot be derived, instead of two.
- For coverage reports, some warnings about generated `ne` methods not
being executed have disappeared.
Both side-effects seem fine, and possibly preferable.
mem::uninitialized: mitigate many incorrect uses of this function
Alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98966: fill memory with `0x01` rather than leaving it uninit. This is definitely bitewise valid for all `bool` and nonnull types, and also those `Option<&T>` that we started putting `noundef` on. However it is still invalid for `char` and some enums, and on references the `dereferenceable` attribute is still violated, so the generated LLVM IR still has UB -- but in fewer cases, and `dereferenceable` is hopefully less likely to cause problems than clearly incorrect range annotations.
This can make using `mem::uninitialized` a lot slower, but that function has been deprecated for years and we keep telling everyone to move to `MaybeUninit` because it is basically impossible to use `mem::uninitialized` correctly. For the cases where that hasn't helped (and all the old code out there that nobody will ever update), we can at least mitigate the effect of using this API. Note that this is *not* in any way a stable guarantee -- it is still UB to call `mem::uninitialized::<bool>()`, and Miri will call it out as such.
This is somewhat similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87032, which proposed to make `uninitialized` return a buffer filled with 0x00. However
- That PR also proposed to reduce the situations in which we panic, which I don't think we should do at this time.
- The 0x01 bit pattern means that nonnull requirements are satisfied, which (due to references) is the most common validity invariant.
`@5225225` I hope I am using `cfg(sanitize)` the right way; I was not sure for which ones to test here.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87675
This initial implementation handles transmutations between types with specified layouts, except when references are involved.
Co-authored-by: Igor null <m1el.2027@gmail.com>
Fix slice::ChunksMut aliasing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94231, details in that issue.
cc `@RalfJung`
This isn't done just yet, all the safety comments are placeholders. But otherwise, it seems to work.
I don't really like this approach though. There's a lot of unsafe code where there wasn't before, but as far as I can tell the only other way to uphold the aliasing requirement imposed by `__iterator_get_unchecked` is to use raw slices, which I think require the same amount of unsafe code. All that would do is tie the `len` and `ptr` fields together.
Oh I just looked and I'm pretty sure that `ChunksExactMut`, `RChunksMut`, and `RChunksExactMut` also need to be patched. Even more reason to put up a draft.
