core/time: avoid divisions in Duration::new
In our (decently large) code base, we use `SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH.elapsed()` in a lot of places & often in a loop or in the hot path. On [Unix](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.75.0/library/std/src/sys/unix/time.rs#L153-L162) at least, it seems we do calculations before hand to ensure that nanos is within the valid range, yet `Duration::new()` still checks it again, using 2 divisions. It seems like adding a branch can make this function 33% faster on ARM64 in the cases where nanos is already in the valid range & seems to have no effect in the other case.
Benchmarks:
M1 Pro (14-inch base model):
```
duration/current/checked
time: [1.5945 ns 1.6167 ns 1.6407 ns]
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe
duration/current/unchecked
time: [1.5941 ns 1.6051 ns 1.6179 ns]
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
duration/branched/checked
time: [1.1997 ns 1.2048 ns 1.2104 ns]
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
4 (4.00%) high severe
duration/branched/unchecked
time: [1.5881 ns 1.5957 ns 1.6039 ns]
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
3 (3.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe
```
EC2 c7gd.16xlarge (Graviton 3):
```
duration/current/checked
time: [2.7996 ns 2.8000 ns 2.8003 ns]
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
2 (2.00%) low severe
3 (3.00%) low mild
duration/current/unchecked
time: [2.9922 ns 2.9925 ns 2.9928 ns]
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
4 (4.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) low mild
2 (2.00%) high mild
duration/branched/checked
time: [2.0830 ns 2.0843 ns 2.0857 ns]
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
1 (1.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high mild
duration/branched/unchecked
time: [2.9879 ns 2.9886 ns 2.9893 ns]
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
3 (3.00%) low severe
2 (2.00%) low mild
```
EC2 r7iz.16xlarge (Intel Xeon Scalable-based (Sapphire Rapids)):
```
duration/current/checked
time: [980.60 ps 980.79 ps 980.99 ps]
Found 10 outliers among 100 measurements (10.00%)
4 (4.00%) low severe
2 (2.00%) low mild
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
duration/current/unchecked
time: [979.53 ps 979.74 ps 979.96 ps]
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
2 (2.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) low mild
2 (2.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
duration/branched/checked
time: [938.72 ps 938.96 ps 939.22 ps]
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high mild
2 (2.00%) high severe
duration/branched/unchecked
time: [1.0103 ns 1.0110 ns 1.0118 ns]
Found 10 outliers among 100 measurements (10.00%)
2 (2.00%) low mild
7 (7.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
```
Bench code (ran using stable 1.75.0 & criterion latest 0.5.1):
I couldn't find any benches for `Duration` in this repo, so I just copied the relevant types & recreated it.
```rust
use criterion::{black_box, criterion_group, criterion_main, Criterion};
pub fn duration_bench(c: &mut Criterion) {
const NANOS_PER_SEC: u32 = 1_000_000_000;
#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, PartialOrd, Ord, Hash)]
#[repr(transparent)]
struct Nanoseconds(u32);
impl Default for Nanoseconds {
#[inline]
fn default() -> Self {
// SAFETY: 0 is within the valid range
unsafe { Nanoseconds(0) }
}
}
#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, PartialOrd, Ord, Hash, Default)]
pub struct Duration {
secs: u64,
nanos: Nanoseconds, // Always 0 <= nanos < NANOS_PER_SEC
}
impl Duration {
#[inline]
pub const fn new_current(secs: u64, nanos: u32) -> Duration {
let secs = match secs.checked_add((nanos / NANOS_PER_SEC) as u64) {
Some(secs) => secs,
None => panic!("overflow in Duration::new"),
};
let nanos = nanos % NANOS_PER_SEC;
// SAFETY: nanos % NANOS_PER_SEC < NANOS_PER_SEC, therefore nanos is within the valid range
Duration { secs, nanos: unsafe { Nanoseconds(nanos) } }
}
#[inline]
pub const fn new_branched(secs: u64, nanos: u32) -> Duration {
if nanos < NANOS_PER_SEC {
// SAFETY: nanos < NANOS_PER_SEC, therefore nanos is within the valid range
Duration { secs, nanos: unsafe { Nanoseconds(nanos) } }
} else {
let secs = match secs.checked_add((nanos / NANOS_PER_SEC) as u64) {
Some(secs) => secs,
None => panic!("overflow in Duration::new"),
};
let nanos = nanos % NANOS_PER_SEC;
// SAFETY: nanos % NANOS_PER_SEC < NANOS_PER_SEC, therefore nanos is within the valid range
Duration { secs, nanos: unsafe { Nanoseconds(nanos) } }
}
}
}
let mut group = c.benchmark_group("duration/current");
group.bench_function("checked", |b| {
b.iter(|| black_box(Duration::new_current(black_box(1_000_000_000), black_box(1_000_000))));
});
group.bench_function("unchecked", |b| {
b.iter(|| {
black_box(Duration::new_current(black_box(1_000_000_000), black_box(2_000_000_000)))
});
});
drop(group);
let mut group = c.benchmark_group("duration/branched");
group.bench_function("checked", |b| {
b.iter(|| {
black_box(Duration::new_branched(black_box(1_000_000_000), black_box(1_000_000)))
});
});
group.bench_function("unchecked", |b| {
b.iter(|| {
black_box(Duration::new_branched(black_box(1_000_000_000), black_box(2_000_000_000)))
});
});
}
criterion_group!(duration_benches, duration_bench);
criterion_main!(duration_benches);
```
The documentation for atomic integers says that they have the "same
in-memory representation" as their underlying integers. This might be
misconstrued as implying that they have the same layout. Therefore,
clarify that atomic integers' alignment is equal to their size.
Stop bailing out from compilation just because there were incoherent traits
fixes#120343
but also has a lot of "type annotations needed" fallout. Some are fixed in the second commit.
Make `NonZero` constructors generic.
This makes `NonZero` constructors generic, so that `NonZero::new` can be used without turbofish syntax.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120257
~~I cannot figure out how to make this work with `const` traits. Not sure if I'm using it wrong or whether there's a bug:~~
```rust
101 | if n == T::ZERO {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `host`, found `true`
|
= note: expected constant `host`
found constant `true`
```
r? `@dtolnay`
Reconstify `Add`
r? project-const-traits
I'm not happy with the ui test changes (or failures because I did not bless them and include the diffs in this PR). There is at least some bugs I need to look and try fix:
1. A third duplicated diagnostic when a consumer crate that does not have `effects` enabled has a trait selection error for an upstream const_trait trait. See tests/ui/ufcs/ufcs-qpath-self-mismatch.rs.
2. For some reason, making `Add` a const trait would stop us from suggesting `T: Add` when we try to add two `T`s without that bound. See tests/ui/suggestions/issue-97677.rs
revert stabilization of const_intrinsic_copy
`@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` I don't know what we were thinking when we approved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97276... const-eval isn't supposed to be able to mutate anything yet! It's also near impossible to actually call `copy` in const on stable since `&mut` expressions are generally unstable. However, there's one exception...
```rust
static mut INT: i32 = unsafe {
let val = &mut [1]; // `&mut` on arrays is allowed in `static mut`
(val as *mut [i32; 1]).copy_from(&[42], 1);
val[0]
};
fn main() { unsafe {
dbg!(INT);
} }
```
Inside `static mut`, we accept some `&mut` since ~forever, to make `static mut FOO: &mut [T] = &mut [...];` work. We reject any attempt to actually write to that mutable reference though... except for the `copy` functions.
I think we should revert stabilizing these functions that take `*mut`, and then re-stabilize them together with `ptr.write` once mutable references are stable.
(This will likely fail on PowerPC until https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/pull/1497 lands. But we'll need a crater run first anyway.)
PartialEq, PartialOrd: update and synchronize handling of transitive chains
It was brought up in https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/total-equality-relations-as-std-eq-rhs/19232 that we currently have a gap in our `PartialEq` rules, which this PR aims to close:
> For example, with PartialEq's conditions you may have a = b = c = d ≠ a (where a and c are of type A, b and d are of type B).
The second commit fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87067 by updating PartialOrd to handle the requirements the same way PartialEq does.
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*".
raw pointer metadata API: data address -> data pointer
A pointer consists of [more than just an address](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3559), so let's not equate "pointer" and "address" in these docs.
