Since the stabilization in #127679 has reached stage0, 1.82-beta, we can
start using `&raw` freely, and even the soft-deprecated `ptr::addr_of!`
and `ptr::addr_of_mut!` can stop allowing the unstable feature.
I intentionally did not change any documentation or tests, but the rest
of those macro uses are all now using `&raw const` or `&raw mut` in the
standard library.
some const cleanup: remove unnecessary attributes, add const-hack indications
I learned that we use `FIXME(const-hack)` on top of the "const-hack" label. That seems much better since it marks the right place in the code and moves around with the code. So I went through the PRs with that label and added appropriate FIXMEs in the code. IMO this means we can then remove the label -- Cc ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval.``
I also noticed some const stability attributes that don't do anything useful, and removed them.
r? ``@fee1-dead``
Improve `Ord` violation help
Recent experience in #128083 showed that the panic message when an Ord violation is detected by the new sort implementations can be confusing. So this PR aims to improve it, together with minor bug fixes in the doc comments for sort*, sort_unstable* and select_nth_unstable*.
Is it possible to get these changes into the 1.81 release? It doesn't change behavior and would greatly help when users encounter this panic for the first time, which they may after upgrading to 1.81.
Tagging `@orlp`
`<[T]>::first_chunk` became const stable in 1.77, but `<[T]>::last_chunk` was
left out. This was fixed in 3488679768, which reached stable in 1.80,
making `<[T]>::last_chunk` const stable as of that version, but it is
documented as being const stable as 1.77. While this is what should have
happened, the documentation should reflect what actually did happen.
- Use if the implementation of [`Ord`] for `T`
language
- Link to total order wiki page
- Rework total order help and examples
- Improve language to be more precise and less
prone to misunderstandings.
- Fix usage of `sort_unstable_by` in `sort_by`
example
- Fix missing author mention
- Use more consistent example input for sort
- Use more idiomatic assert_eq! in examples
- Use more natural "comparison function" language
instead of "comparator function"
This restores the original binary search implementation from #45333
which has the nice property of having a loop count that only depends on
the size of the slice. This, along with explicit conditional moves
from #128250, means that the entire binary search loop can be perfectly
predicted by the branch predictor.
Additionally, LLVM is able to unroll the loop when the slice length is
known at compile-time. This results in a very compact code sequence of
3-4 instructions per binary search step and zero branches.
Fixes#53823
Clean and enable `rustdoc::unescaped_backticks` for `core/alloc/std/test/proc_macro`
I am not sure if the lint is supposed to be "ready enough" (since it is `allow` by default), but it does catch a couple issues in `core` (`alloc`, `std`, `test` and `proc_macro` are already clean), so I propose making it `warn` in all the crates rendered in the website.
Cc: `@GuillaumeGomez`
There are only 3 cases across the crates rendered in the website (`core`,
`alloc`, `std`, `proc_macro` and `test`), and they are all in `core`.
Clean them up, so that the lint can be enabled in the next commit.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Fix doc nits
Many tiny changes to stdlib doc comments to make them consistent (for example "Returns foo", rather than "Return foo"), adding missing periods, paragraph breaks, backticks for monospace style, and other minor nits.
from_ref, from_mut: clarify documentation
This was brought up [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56604#issuecomment-2143193486). The domain of quantification is generally always constrained by the type in the type signature, and I am not sure it's always worth spelling that out explicitly as that makes things exceedingly verbose. But since this was explicitly brought up, let's clarify.
Replace sort implementations
This PR replaces the sort implementations with tailor-made ones that strike a balance of run-time, compile-time and binary-size, yielding run-time and compile-time improvements. Regressing binary-size for `slice::sort` while improving it for `slice::sort_unstable`. All while upholding the existing soft and hard safety guarantees, and even extending the soft guarantees, detecting strict weak ordering violations with a high chance and reporting it to users via a panic.
* `slice::sort` -> driftsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/driftsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
* `slice::sort_unstable` -> ipnsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/ipnsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
#### Why should we change the sort implementations?
In the [2023 Rust survey](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/02/19/2023-Rust-Annual-Survey-2023-results.html#challenges), one of the questions was: "In your opinion, how should work on the following aspects of Rust be prioritized?". The second place was "Runtime performance" and the third one "Compile Times". This PR aims to improve both.
#### Why is this one big PR and not multiple?
* The current documentation gives performance recommendations for `slice::sort` and `slice::sort_unstable`. If for example only one of them were to be changed, this advice would be misleading for some Rust versions. By replacing them atomically, the advice remains largely unchanged, and users don't have to change their code.
* driftsort and ipnsort share a substantial part of their implementations.
* The implementation of `select_nth_unstable` uses internals of `slice::sort_unstable`, which makes it impractical to split changes.
---
This PR is a collaboration with `@orlp.`
- `slice::sort` -> driftsort
https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/driftsort_introduction/text.md
- `slice::sort_unstable` -> ipnsort
https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/ipnsort_introduction/text.md
Replaces the sort implementations with tailor made ones that strike a
balance of run-time, compile-time and binary-size, yielding run-time and
compile-time improvements. Regressing binary-size for `slice::sort`
while improving it for `slice::sort_unstable`. All while upholding the
existing soft and hard safety guarantees, and even extending the soft
guarantees, detecting strict weak ordering violations with a high chance
and reporting it to users via a panic.
In addition the implementation of `select_nth_unstable` is also adapted
as it uses `slice::sort_unstable` internals.
Implement `as_chunks` with `split_at_unchecked`
We were discussing various ways to do [this on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/273541522815713281/1236946363120619521), and in the process I noticed that <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1P16P37Go> is emitting a panic path inside `as_chunks`. It optimizes out in release, but we could just not do that in the first place.
We're already doing unsafe code that depends on this value being calculated correctly, so might as well call `split_at_unchecked` instead of `split_at`.
Use `unchecked_sub` in `split_at`
LLVM currently isn't figuring it out on its own, even in the checked version where it hypothetically could.
Before: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/PEY38YrKs>
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub i64 %x.1, %n
```
After:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub nuw i64 %x.1, %n
```
This is not using the wrapper because there's already a ubcheck covering it, so I don't want this to get a second one once #121571 lands.
---
This is basically the same as #108763, since `split_at` is essentially doing two `get_unchecked`s.
Stabilize `split_at_checked`
Closes#119128
For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
