Update the index of Option to make the summary more comprehensive
fix: #138955
This PR and #138968 are twin PR
By the way, this is my first time contributing to rust, and I'm not a native English speaker, so any suggestions—whether about the wording in the docs or the contribution process itself—would be greatly appreciated!
Deprecate the unstable `concat_idents!`
`concat_idents` has been around unstably for a long time, but there is now a better (but still unstable) way to join identifiers using `${concat(...)}` syntax with `macro_metavar_expr_concat`. This resolves a lot of the problems with `concat_idents` and is on a better track toward stabilization, so there is no need to keep both versions around. `concat_idents!` still has a lot of use in the ecosystem so deprecate it before removing, as discussed in [1].
Link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124225
[1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/219381-t-libs/topic/Removing.20.60concat_idents.60
`concat_idents` has been around unstably for a long time, but there is
now a better (but still unstable) way to join identifiers using
`${concat(...)}` syntax with `macro_metavar_expr_concat`. This resolves
a lot of the problems with `concat_idents` and is on a better track
toward stabilization, so there is no need to keep both versions around.
`concat_idents!` still has a lot of use in the ecosystem so deprecate it
before removing, as discussed in [1].
Link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124225
[1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/219381-t-libs/topic/Removing.20.60concat_idents.60
Suggest {to,from}_ne_bytes for transmutations between arrays and integers, etc
implements #136067
Rust has helper methods for many kinds of safe transmutes, for example integer<->bytes. This is a lint against using transmute for these cases.
```rs
fn bytes_at_home(x: [u8; 4]) -> u32 {
transmute(x)
}
// other examples
transmute::<[u8; 2], u16>();
transmute::<[u8; 8], f64>();
transmute::<u32, [u8; 4]>();
transmute::<char, u32>();
transmute::<u32, char>();
```
It would be handy to suggest `u32::from_ne_bytes(x)`.
This is implemented for `[u8; _]` -> `{float int}`
This also implements the cases:
`fXX` <-> `uXX` = `{from_bits, to_bits}`
`uXX` -> `iXX` via `cast_unsigned` and `cast_signed`
{`char` -> `u32`, `bool` -> `n8`} via `from`
`u32` -> `char` via `from_u32_unchecked` (note: notes `from_u32().unwrap()`) (contested)
`u8` -> `bool` via `==` (debatable)
---
try-job: aarch64-gnu
try-job: test-various
Stabilize `naked_functions`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
request for stabilization on tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957#issuecomment-2539270352
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
# Request for Stabilization
Two years later, we're ready to try this again. Even though this issue is already marked as having passed FCP, given the amount of time that has passed and the changes in implementation strategy, we should follow the process again.
## Summary
The `naked_functions` feature has two main parts: the `#[naked]` function attribute, and the `naked_asm!` macro.
An example of a naked function:
```rust
const THREE: usize = 3;
#[naked]
pub extern "sysv64" fn add_n(number: usize) -> usize {
// SAFETY: the validity of the used registers
// is guaranteed according to the "sysv64" ABI
unsafe {
core::arch::naked_asm!(
"add rdi, {}",
"mov rax, rdi",
"ret",
const THREE,
)
}
}
```
When the `#[naked]` attribute is applied to a function, the compiler won't emit a [function prologue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_prologue_and_epilogue) or epilogue when generating code for this function. This attribute is analogous to [`__attribute__((naked))`](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100067/0608/Compiler-specific-Function--Variable--and-Type-Attributes/--attribute----naked---function-attribute) in C. The use of this feature allows the programmer to have precise control over the assembly that is generated for a given function.
The body of a naked function must consist of a single `naked_asm!` invocation, a heavily restricted variant of the `asm!` macro: the only legal operands are `const` and `sym`, and the only legal options are `raw` and `att_syntax`. In lieu of specifying operands, the `naked_asm!` within a naked function relies on the function's calling convention to determine the validity of registers.
## Documentation
The Rust Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
(Previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1153)
## Tests
* [tests/run-make/naked-symbol-visiblity](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) verifies that `pub`, `#[no_mangle]` and `#[linkage = "..."]` work correctly for naked functions
* [tests/codegen/naked-fn](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) has tests for function alignment, use of generics, and validates the exact assembly output on linux, macos, windows and thumb
* [tests/ui/asm/naked-*](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/ui/asm) tests for incompatible attributes, generating errors around incorrect use of `naked_asm!`, etc
## Interaction with other (unstable) features
### [fn_align](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232)
Combining `#[naked]` with `#[repr(align(N))]` works well, and is tested e.g. here
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/aligned.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/min-function-alignment.rs
It's tested extensively because we do need to explicitly support the `repr(align)` attribute (and make sure we e.g. don't mistake powers of two for number of bytes).
## History
This feature was originally proposed in [RFC 1201](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1201), filed on 2015-07-10 and accepted on 2016-03-21. Support for this feature was added in [#32410](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/32410), landing on 2016-03-23. Development languished for several years as it was realized that the semantics given in RFC 1201 were insufficiently specific. To address this, a minimal subset of naked functions was specified by [RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2972), filed on 2020-08-07 and accepted on 2021-11-16. Prior to the acceptance of RFC 2972, all of the stricter behavior specified by RFC 2972 was implemented as a series of warn-by-default lints that would trigger on existing uses of the `naked` attribute; these lints became hard errors in [#93153](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93153) on 2022-01-22. As a result, today RFC 2972 has completely superseded RFC 1201 in describing the semantics of the `naked` attribute.
More recently, the `naked_asm!` macro was added to replace the earlier use of a heavily restricted `asm!` invocation. The `naked_asm!` name is clearer in error messages, and provides a place for documenting the specific requirements of inline assembly in naked functions.
The implementation strategy was changed to emitting a global assembly block. In effect, an extern function
```rust
extern "C" fn foo() {
core::arch::naked_asm!("ret")
}
```
is emitted as something similar to
```rust
core::arch::global_asm!(
"foo:",
"ret"
);
extern "C" {
fn foo();
}
```
The codegen approach was chosen over the llvm naked function attribute because:
- the rust compiler can guarantee the behavior (no sneaky additional instructions, no inlining, etc.)
- behavior is the same on all backends (llvm, cranelift, gcc, etc)
Finally, there is now an allow list of compatible attributes on naked functions, so that e.g. `#[inline]` is rejected with an error. The `#[target_feature]` attribute on naked functions was later made separately unstable, because implementing it is complex and we did not want to block naked functions themselves on how target features work on them. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568.
relevant PRs for these recent changes
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127853
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128004
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138570
-
### Various historical notes
#### `noreturn`
[RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2972-constrained-naked.md) mentions that naked functions
> must have a body which contains only a single asm!() statement which:
> iii. must contain the noreturn option.
Instead of `asm!`, the current implementation mandates that the body contain a single `naked_asm!` statement. The `naked_asm!` macro is a heavily restricted version of the `asm!` macro, making it easier to talk about and document the rules of assembly in naked functions and give dedicated error messages.
For `naked_asm!`, the behavior of the `asm!`'s `noreturn` option is implicit. The `noreturn` option means that it is UB for control flow to fall through the end of the assembly block. With `asm!`, this option is usually used for blocks that diverge (and thus have no return and can be typed as `!`). With `naked_asm!`, the intent is different: usually naked funtions do return, but they must do so from within the assembly block. The `noreturn` option was used so that the compiler would not itself also insert a `ret` instruction at the very end.
#### padding / `ud2`
A `naked_asm!` block that violates the safety assumption that control flow must not fall through the end of the assembly block is UB. Because no return instruction is emitted, whatever bytes follow the naked function will be executed, resulting in truly undefined behavior. There has been discussion whether rustc should emit an invalid instruction (e.g. `ud2` on x86) after the `naked_asm!` block to at least fail early in the case of an invalid `naked_asm!`. It was however decided that it is more useful to guarantee that `#[naked]` functions NEVER contain any instructions besides those in the `naked_asm!` block.
# unresolved questions
None
r? ``@Amanieu``
I've validated the tests on x86_64 and aarch64
Add target-specific NaN payloads for the missing tier 2 targets
This PR adds target-specific NaN payloads for the remaining tier 2 targets:
- `arm64ec`: This target is a mix of `x86_64` and `aarch64`, meaning as they both have no extra payloads `arm64ec` also has no extra payloads.
- `loongarch64`: Per [LoongArch Reference Manual - Volume 1: Basic Architecture](https://github.com/loongson/LoongArch-Documentation/releases/download/2023.04.20/LoongArch-Vol1-v1.10-EN.pdf) section 3.1.1.3, LoongArch does quieting NaN propagation with the Rust preferred NaN as its default NaN, meaning it has no extra payloads.
- `nvptx64`: Per [PTX ISA documentation](https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/parallel-thread-execution/index.html#floating-point-instructions) section 9.7.3 (and section 9.7.4 for `f16`), all payloads are possible. The documentation explicitly states that `f16` and `f32` operations result in an unspecified NaN payload, while for `f64` it states "NaN payloads are supported" without specifying how or what payload will be generated if there are no input NaNs.
- `powerpc` and `powerpc64`: Per [Power Instruction Set Architecture](https://files.openpower.foundation/s/9izgC5Rogi5Ywmm/download/OPF_PowerISA_v3.1C.pdf) Book I section 4.3.2, PowerPC does quieting NaN propagation with the Rust preferred NaN being generated if no there are no input NaNs, meaning it has no extra payloads.
- `s390x`: Per [IBM z/Architecture Principles of Operation](https://www.vm.ibm.com/library/other/22783213.pdf#page=965) page 9-3, s390x does quieting NaN propagation with the Rust's preferred NaN as its default NaN, meaning it has no extra payloads.
Tracking issue: #128288
cc ``@RalfJung``
``@rustbot`` label +T-lang
Also cc relevant target maintainers of tier 2 targets:
- `arm64ec`: ``@dpaoliello``
- `loongarch64`: ``@heiher`` ``@xiangzhai`` ``@zhaixiaojuan`` ``@xen0n``
- `nvptx64`: ``@RDambrosio016`` ``@kjetilkjeka``
- `powerpc`: the only documented maintainer is ``@BKPepe`` for the tier 3 `powerpc-unknown-linux-muslspe`.
- `powerpc64`: ``@daltenty`` ``@gilamn5tr`` ``@Gelbpunkt`` ``@famfo`` ``@neuschaefer``
- `s390x`: ``@uweigand`` ``@cuviper``
simd intrinsics with mask: accept unsigned integer masks, and fix some of the errors
It's not clear at all why the mask would have to be signed, it is anyway interpreted bitwise. The backend should just make sure that works no matter the surface-level type; our LLVM backend already does this correctly. The note of "the mask may be widened, which only has the correct behavior for signed integers" explains... nothing? Why can't the code do the widening correctly? If necessary, just cast to the signed type first...
Also while we are at it, fix the errors. For simd_masked_load/store, the errors talked about the "third argument" but they meant the first argument (the mask is the first argument there). They also used the wrong type for `expected_element`.
I have extremely low confidence in the GCC part of this PR.
See [discussion on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/257879-project-portable-simd/topic/On.20the.20sign.20of.20masks)
add next_index to Enumerate
Proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/435
Tracking Issue: #130711
This basically just reopens#130682 but squashed and with the new function and the feature gate renamed to `next_index.`
There are two questions I have already:
- Shouldn't we add test coverage for that? I'm happy to provide some, but I might need a pointer to where these test would be.
- Maybe I could actually also add a doctest?
- For now, I just renamed the feature name in the unstable attribute to `next_index`, as well, so it matches the new name of the function. Is that okay? And can I just do that and use any string, or is there a sealed list of features defined somewhere where I also need to change the name?
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
Fix drop handling in `hint::select_unpredictable`
This intrinsic doesn't drop the value that is not selected so this is manually done in the public function that wraps the intrinsic.
f*::NAN: guarantee that this is a quiet NaN
I think we should guarantee that this is a quiet NaN. This then implies that programs not using `f*::from_bits` (or unsafe type conversions) are guaranteed to only work with quiet NaNs. It would be awkward if people start to write `0.0 / 0.0` instead of using the constant just because they want to get a guaranteed-quiet NaN.
This is a `@rust-lang/libs-api` change. The definition of this constant currently is `0.0 / 0.0`, which is already guaranteed to be a quiet NaN. So all this does is forward that guarantee to our users.
