Add Benchmarks for int_pow Methods.
There is quite a bit of room for improvement in performance of the `int_pow` family of methods. I added benchmarks for those functions. In particular, there are benchmarks for small compile-time bases to measure the effect of #114390. ~~I added a lot (245), but all but 22 of them are marked with `#[ignore]`. There are a lot of macros, and I would appreciate feedback on how to simplify them.~~
~~To run benches relevant to #114390, use `./x bench core --stage 1 -- pow_base_const --include-ignored`.~~
Optimize will_wake implementation by comparing vtable address instead
of its content.
The existing best practice to avoid false negatives from will_wake is
to define a waker vtable as a static item. That approach continues to
works with the new implementation.
While this potentially changes the observable behaviour, the function is
documented to work on a best-effort basis. The PartialEq impl for
RawWaker remains as it was.
This stabilizes all methods under `slice_first_last_chunk`.
Additionally, it const stabilizes the non-mut functions and moves the `_mut`
functions under `const_slice_first_last_chunk`. These are blocked on
`const_mut_refs`.
As part of this change, `slice_split_at_unchecked` was marked const-stable for
internal use (but not fully stable).
A more efficient slice comparison implementation for T: !BytewiseEq
(This is a follow up PR on #113654)
This PR changes the implementation for `[T]` slice comparison when `T: !BytewiseEq`. The previous implementation using zip was not optimized properly by the compiler, which didn't leverage the fact that both length were equal. Performance improvements are for example 20% when testing that `[Some(0_u64); 4096].as_slice() == [Some(0_u64); 4096].as_slice()`.
Use `assert_unsafe_precondition` for `char::from_u32_unchecked`
Use `assert_unsafe_precondition` in `char::from_u32_unchecked` so that it can be stabilized as `const`.
Rewrite `pin` module documentation to clarify usage and invariants
The documentation of `pin` today does not give a complete treatment of pinning from first principles, nor does it adequately help build intuition and understanding for how the different elements of the pinning story fit together.
This rewrite attempts to address these in a way that makes the concept more approachable while also making the documentation more normative.
This PR picks up where `@mcy` left off in #88500 (thanks to him for the original work and `@Manishearth` for mentioning it such that I originally found it). I've directly incorporated much of the feedback left on the original PR and have rewritten and changed some of the main conceits of the prose to better adhere to the feedback from the reviewers on that PR or just explain something in (hopefully) a better way.
