- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
The use of module-level functions instead of associated functions
on `<*const T>` or `<*mut T>` follows the precedent of
`ptr::slice_from_raw_parts` and `ptr::slice_from_raw_parts_mut`.
Stabilize remaining integer methods as `const fn`
This pull request stabilizes the following methods as `const fn`:
- `i*::checked_div`
- `i*::checked_div_euclid`
- `i*::checked_rem`
- `i*::checked_rem_euclid`
- `i*::div_euclid`
- `i*::overflowing_div`
- `i*::overflowing_div_euclid`
- `i*::overflowing_rem`
- `i*::overflowing_rem_euclid`
- `i*::rem_euclid`
- `i*::wrapping_div`
- `i*::wrapping_div_euclid`
- `i*::wrapping_rem`
- `i*::wrapping_rem_euclid`
- `u*::checked_div`
- `u*::checked_div_euclid`
- `u*::checked_rem`
- `u*::checked_rem_euclid`
- `u*::div_euclid`
- `u*::overflowing_div`
- `u*::overflowing_div_euclid`
- `u*::overflowing_rem`
- `u*::overflowing_rem_euclid`
- `u*::rem_euclid`
- `u*::wrapping_div`
- `u*::wrapping_div_euclid`
- `u*::wrapping_rem`
- `u*::wrapping_rem_euclid`
These can all be implemented on the current stable (1.49). There are two unstable details: const likely/unlikely and unchecked division/remainder. Both of these are for optimizations, and are in no way required to make the methods function; there is no exposure of these details publicly. Per comments below, it seems best practice is to stabilize the intrinsics. As such, `intrinsics::unchecked_div` and `intrinsics::unchecked_rem` have been stabilized as `const` as part of this pull request as well. The methods themselves remain unstable.
I believe part of the reason these were not stabilized previously was the behavior around division by 0 and modulo 0. After testing on nightly, the diagnostic for something like `const _: i8 = 5i8 % 0i8;` is similar to that of `const _: i8 = 5i8.rem_euclid(0i8);` (assuming the appropriate feature flag is enabled). As such, I believe these methods are ready to be stabilized as `const fn`.
This pull request represents the final methods mentioned in #53718. As such, this PR closes#53718.
`@rustbot` modify labels to +A-const-fn, +T-libs
Stabilize raw ref macros
This stabilizes `raw_ref_macros` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73394), which is possible now that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74355 is fixed.
However, as I already said in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73394#issuecomment-751342185, I am not particularly happy with the current names of the macros. So I propose we also change them, which means I am proposing to stabilize the following in `core::ptr`:
```rust
pub macro const_addr_of($e:expr) {
&raw const $e
}
pub macro mut_addr_of($e:expr) {
&raw mut $e
}
```
The macro name change means we need another round of FCP. Cc `````@rust-lang/libs`````
Fixes#73394
Constier maybe uninit
I was playing around trying to make `[T; N]::zip()` in #79451 be `const fn`. One of the things I bumped into was `MaybeUninit::assume_init`. Is there any reason for the intrinsic `assert_inhabited<T>()` and therefore `MaybeUninit::assume_init` not being `const`?
---
I have as best as I could tried to follow the instruction in [library/core/src/intrinsics.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs#L11). I have no idea what I am doing but it seems to compile after some slight changes after the copy paste. Is this anywhere near how this should be done?
Also any ideas for name of the feature gate? I guess `const_maybe_assume_init` is quite misleading since I have added some more methods. Should I add test? If so what should be tested?
Rename `optin_builtin_traits` to `auto_traits`
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
r? `@oli-obk` (feel free to re-assign if you're not the right reviewer for this)
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
Also stabilize constctlz for const ctlz_nonzero.
The public methods stabilized const by this commit are:
* `{i*,u*}::checked_pow`
* `{i*,u*}::saturating_pow`
* `{i*,u*}::wrapping_pow`
* `{i*,u*}::overflowing_pow`
* `{i*,u*}::pow`
* `u*::next_power_of_two`
* `u*::checked_next_power_of_two`
* `u*::wrapping_next_power_of_two` (the method itself is still unstable)
Refactor IntErrorKind to avoid "underflow" terminology
This PR is a continuation of #76455
# Changes
- `Overflow` renamed to `PosOverflow` and `Underflow` renamed to `NegOverflow` after discussion in #76455
- Changed some of the parsing code to return `InvalidDigit` rather than `Empty` for strings "+" and "-". https://users.rust-lang.org/t/misleading-error-in-str-parse-for-int-types/49178
- Carry the problem `char` with the `InvalidDigit` variant.
- Necessary changes were made to the compiler as it depends on `int_error_matching`.
- Redid tests to match on specific errors.
r? ```@KodrAus```
Add `str::{Split,RSplit,SplitN,RSplitN,SplitTerminator,RSplitTerminator,SplitInclusive}::as_str` methods
tl;dr this allows viewing unyelded part of str-split-iterators, like so:
```rust
let mut split = "Mary had a little lamb".split(' ');
assert_eq!(split.as_str(), "Mary had a little lamb");
split.next();
assert_eq!(split.as_str(), "had a little lamb");
split.by_ref().for_each(drop);
assert_eq!(split.as_str(), "");
```
--------------
This PR adds semi-identical `as_str` methods to most str-split-iterators with signatures like `&'_ Split<'a, P: Pattern<'a>> -> &'a str` (Note: output `&str` lifetime is bound to the `'a`, not the `'_`). The methods are similar to [`Chars::as_str`]
`SplitInclusive::as_str` is under `"str_split_inclusive_as_str"` feature gate, all other methods are under `"str_split_as_str"` feature gate.
Before this PR you had to sum `len`s of all yielded parts or collect into `String` to emulate `as_str`.
[`Chars::as_str`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/str/struct.Chars.html#method.as_str
