This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
Make split_inclusive() on an empty slice yield an empty output
`[].split_inclusive()` currently yields a single, empty slice. That's
different from `"".split_inslusive()`, which yields no output at
all. I think that makes the slice version harder to use.
The case where I ran into this bug was when writing code for
generating a diff between two slices of bytes. I wanted to prefix
removed lines with "-" and a added lines with "+". Due to
`split_inclusive()`'s current behavior, that means that my code prints
just a "-" or "+" for empty files. I suspect most existing callers
have similar "bugs" (which would be fixed by this patch).
Closes#89716.
Add #[must_use] to remaining core functions
I've run out of compelling reasons to group functions together across crates so I'm just going to go module-by-module. This is everything remaining from the `core` crate.
Ignored by clippy for reasons unknown:
```rust
core::alloc::Layout unsafe fn for_value_raw<T: ?Sized>(t: *const T) -> Self;
core::any const fn type_name_of_val<T: ?Sized>(_val: &T) -> &'static str;
```
Ignored by clippy because of `mut`:
```rust
str fn split_at_mut(&mut self, mid: usize) -> (&mut str, &mut str);
```
<del>
Ignored by clippy presumably because a caller might want `f` called for side effects. That seems like a bad usage of `map` to me.
```rust
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map<U: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> Ref<'b, T>;
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map_split<U: ?Sized, V: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> (Ref<'b, U>, Ref<'b, V>);
```
</del>
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
This addresses a TODO comment. The behavior of #[derive(Clone)]
*does* result in a T: Clone requirement.
Add a manual Clone implementation, matching Split and SplitInclusive.
`[].split_inclusive()` currently yields a single, empty slice. That's
different from `"".split_inslusive()`, which yields no output at
all. I think that makes the slice version harder to use.
The case where I ran into this bug was when writing code for
generating a diff between two slices of bytes. I wanted to prefix
removed lines with "-" and a added lines with "+". Due to
`split_inclusive()`'s current behavior, that means that my code prints
just a "-" or "+" for empty files. I suspect most existing callers
have similar "bugs" (which would be fixed by this patch).
Closes#89716.
Adds extensive test for all the [r]split* iterators.
Fixes size_hint upper bound for split_inclusive* iterators which was one higher than necessary for non-empty slices.
Fixes size_hint lower bound for [r]splitn* iterators when n==0, which was one too high.
This method on the Iterator trait is doc(hidden), and about half of
implementations were doc(hidden). This adds the attribute to the
remaining implementations.
Add `as_str` method for split whitespace str iterators
This PR adds `as_str` methods to `SplitWhitespace` and `SplitAsciiWhitespace`
str iterators. The methods return the remainder, similar to `as_str` methods on
`Chars` and other split iterators. This PR is a continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75265, which added `as_str` for all other str split iterators.
The feature gate for new methods is `#![feature(str_split_whitespace_as_str)]`.
`SplitWhitespace` and `SplitAsciiWhitespace` use iterators under the hood, so to implement `as_str` it's required to either
1. Make fields of some iterators `pub(crate)`
2. Add getter methods (like `into_inner`, `inner`, `inner_mut`...) to some (all) iterators
3. Completely rewrite `SplitWhitespace` and `SplitAsciiWhitespace`
This PR uses the 1. approach since it's easier to implement and requires fewer changes (and no changes to the public API). If you think that's not the right way, please, tell me.
r? `@m-ou-se`
Turn may_have_side_effect into an associated constant
The `may_have_side_effect` is an implementation detail of `TrustedRandomAccess`
trait. It describes if obtaining an iterator element may have side effects. It
is currently implemented as an associated function.
Turn `may_have_side_effect` into an associated constant. This makes the
value immediately available to the optimizer.
This commit adds `as_str` methods to `SplitWhitespace` and `SplitAsciiWhitespace`
str iterators. The methods return the remainder, similar to `as_str` methods on
`Chars` and other split iterators.
This commit also makes fields of some iterators `pub(crate)`.
The `may_have_side_effect` is an implementation detail of `TrustedRandomAccess`
trait. It describes if obtaining an iterator element may have side effects. It
is currently implemented as an associated function.
Turn `may_have_side_effect` into an associated constant. This makes the
value immediately available to the optimizer.
Stabilize split_inclusive
### Contents of this MR
This stabilises:
* `slice::split_inclusive`
* `slice::split_inclusive_mut`
* `str::split_inclusive`
Closes#72360.
### A possible concern
The proliferation of `split_*` methods is not particularly pretty. The existence of `split_inclusive` seems to invite the addition of `rsplit_inclusive`, `splitn_inclusive`, etc. We could instead have a more general API, along these kinds of lines maybe:
```
pub fn split_generic('a,P,H>(&'a self, pat: P, how: H) -> ...
where P: Pattern
where H: SplitHow;
pub fn split_generic_mut('a,P,H>(&'a mut self, pat: P, how: H) -> ...
where P: Pattern
where H: SplitHow;
trait SplitHow {
fn reverse(&self) -> bool;
fn inclusive -> bool;
fn limit(&self) -> Option<usize>;
}
pub struct SplitFwd;
...
pub struct SplitRevInclN(pub usize);
```
But maybe that is worse.
### Let us defer that? ###
This seems like a can of worms. I think we can defer opening it now; if and when we have something more general, these two methods can become convenience aliases. But I thought I would mention it so the lang API team can consider it and have an opinion.
Add [T]::as_chunks(_mut)
Allows getting the slices directly, rather than just through an iterator as in `array_chunks(_mut)`. The constructors for those iterators are then written in terms of these methods, so the iterator constructors no longer have any `unsafe` of their own.
Unstable, of course. #74985
Allows getting the slices directly, rather than just through an iterator as in `array_chunks(_mut)`. The constructors for those iterators are then written in terms of these methods, so the iterator constructors no longer have any `unsafe` of their own.
It's possible for method resolution to pick this method over a lower
priority stable method, causing compilation errors. Since this method
is permanently unstable, give it a name that is very unlikely to be used
in user code.
