Remove SpecOptionPartialEq
With the recent LLVM bump, the specialization for Option::partial_eq on types with niches is no longer necessary. I kept the manual implementation as it still gives us better codegen than the derive (will look at this seperately).
Also implemented PartialOrd/Ord by hand as it _somewhat_ improves codegen for #49892: https://godbolt.org/z/vx5Y6oW4Y
Make `type_ascribe!` not a built-in
The only weird thing is the macro expansion note. I wonder if we should suppress these 🤔
r? ````@fmease```` since you told me about builtin# lol
Relax SeqCst ordering in standard library.
Every single SeqCst in the standard library is unnecessary. In all cases, Relaxed or Release+Acquire was sufficient.
As I [wrote](https://marabos.nl/atomics/memory-ordering.html#common-misconceptions) in my book on atomics:
> [..] when reading code, SeqCst basically tells the reader: "this operation depends on the total order of every single SeqCst operation in the program," which is an incredibly far-reaching claim. The same code would likely be easier to review and verify if it used weaker memory ordering instead, if possible. For example, Release effectively tells the reader: "this relates to an acquire operation on the same variable," which involves far fewer considerations when forming an understanding of the code.
>
> It is advisable to see SeqCst as a warning sign. Seeing it in the wild often means that either something complicated is going on, or simply that the author did not take the time to analyze their memory ordering related assumptions, both of which are reasons for extra scrutiny.
r? ````@Amanieu```` ````@joboet````
Makes the iterator 2*usize larger, but I doubt that matters much.
In exchange, we save a lot on instruction count.
In the absence of delegation syntax,
we must forward all the specialized impls manually…
Stabilize associated type bounds (RFC 2289)
This PR stabilizes associated type bounds, which were laid out in [RFC 2289]. This gives us a shorthand to express nested type bounds that would otherwise need to be expressed with nested `impl Trait` or broken into several `where` clauses.
### What are we stabilizing?
We're stabilizing the associated item bounds syntax, which allows us to put bounds in associated type position within other bounds, i.e. `T: Trait<Assoc: Bounds...>`. See [RFC 2289] for motivation.
In all position, the associated type bound syntax expands into a set of two (or more) bounds, and never anything else (see "How does this differ[...]" section for more info).
Associated type bounds are stabilized in four positions:
* **`where` clauses (and APIT)** - This is equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses. For example, `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>` is equivalent to `where T: Trait, <T as Trait>::Assoc: Bound`.
* **Supertraits** - Similar to above, `trait CopyIterator: Iterator<Item: Copy> {}`. This is almost equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses; however, the bound on the associated item is implied whenever the trait is used. See #112573/#112629.
* **Associated type item bounds** - This allows constraining the *nested* rigid projections that are associated with a trait's associated types. e.g. `trait Trait { type Assoc: Trait2<Assoc2: Copy>; }`.
* **opaque item bounds (RPIT, TAIT)** - This allows constraining associated types that are associated with the opaque without having to *name* the opaque. For example, `impl Iterator<Item: Copy>` defines an iterator whose item is `Copy` without having to actually name that item bound.
The latter three are not expressible in surface Rust (though for associated type item bounds, this will change in #120752, which I don't believe should block this PR), so this does represent a slight expansion of what can be expressed in trait bounds.
### How does this differ from the RFC?
Compared to the RFC, the current implementation *always* desugars associated type bounds to sets of `ty::Clause`s internally. Specifically, it does *not* introduce a position-dependent desugaring as laid out in [RFC 2289], and in particular:
* It does *not* desugar to anonymous associated items in associated type item bounds.
* It does *not* desugar to nested RPITs in RPIT bounds, nor nested TAITs in TAIT bounds.
This position-dependent desugaring laid out in the RFC existed simply to side-step limitations of the trait solver, which have mostly been fixed in #120584. The desugaring laid out in the RFC also added unnecessary complication to the design of the feature, and introduces its own limitations to, for example:
* Conditionally lowering to nested `impl Trait` in certain positions such as RPIT and TAIT means that we inherit the limitations of RPIT/TAIT, namely lack of support for higher-ranked opaque inference. See this code example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120752#issuecomment-1979412531.
* Introducing anonymous associated types makes traits no longer object safe, since anonymous associated types are not nameable, and all associated types must be named in `dyn` types.
This last point motivates why this PR is *not* stabilizing support for associated type bounds in `dyn` types, e.g, `dyn Assoc<Item: Bound>`. Why? Because `dyn` types need to have *concrete* types for all associated items, this would necessitate a distinct lowering for associated type bounds, which seems both complicated and unnecessary compared to just requiring the user to write `impl Trait` themselves. See #120719.
### Implementation history:
Limited to the significant behavioral changes and fixes and relevant PRs, ping me if I left something out--
* #57428
* #108063
* #110512
* #112629
* #120719
* #120584Closes#52662
[RFC 2289]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2289-associated-type-bounds.html
core: document default attribute stabilization
As of now, the first release which stabilized the `#[default]` macro for the deriving the `Default` trait for enus is not documented.
I have had to search the [`RELEASES.md`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/RELEASES.md) when making sure my code would be accepted by an older Rust compiler.
I just added a line in the doc comment since, as far as I know, there's no option to pass to the `#[stable()]` attribute.
I am open to improvements in the wording.
Making `libcore` decide this is silly; the backend has so much better information about when it's a good idea.
So introduce a new `typed_swap` intrinsic with a fallback body, but replace that implementation for immediates and scalar pairs.
Add as_(mut_)ptr and as_(mut_)slice to raw array pointers
Hey, first time contributing to the standard libraries so not completely sure about the process.
These functions are complementary to the ones being added in #74265 . I found them missing on array pointers.
See also:
- ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/321
- Tracking issue: #119834
Implement `Duration::as_millis_{f64,f32}`
Implementation of #122451.
Linked const-unstability to #72440, so the post there should probably be updated to mentions the 2 new methods when/if this PR is merged.
fix unsoundness in Step::forward_unchecked for signed integers
Fixes#122420
```rust
pub fn foo(a: i8, b: u8) -> i8 {
unsafe { a.checked_add_unsigned(b).unwrap_unchecked() }
}
```
still compiles down to a single arithmetic instruction ([godbolt](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/qsd3xYWfE)).
But we may be losing some loop optimizations if llvm can no longer easily derive that it's a finite counted loop from the no-wrapping flags.
Improve `Step` docs
It [came up on urlo](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/implement-trait-step-in-1-76-0/108204?u=cad97) that the unstable reason string isn't helpful, so just remove it; there's nothing meaningful to add here.
Also makes a couple drive-by improvements to the method docs -- removes incorrect references, changes `forward_checked`'s invariant formulation to match `backward_checked`'s, and adds a helpful corollary that `step_unchecked(a, 0)` is always safe.
Add CStr::bytes iterator
See rust-lang/libs-team#135 for an ACP.
Since rust-lang/libs-team#134 was also accepted, this type is now `core::ffi::c_str::Bytes` instead of `core::ffi::CStrBytes`.
