The `Unpin` bound was originally added in #56939 following the
recommendation of @withoutboats in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55766#issue-378417538
That comment does not give explicit justification for why the bound
should be added. The relevant context was:
> [ ] Remove `impl<P> Unpin for Pin<P>`
>
> This impl is not justified by our standard justification for unpin
> impls: there is no pointer direction between `Pin<P>` and `P`. Its
> usefulness is covered by the impls for pointers themselves.
>
> This futures impl (link to the impl changed in this PR) will need to
> change to add a `P: Unpin` bound.
The decision to remove the unconditional impl of `Unpin for Pin` is
sound (these days there is just an auto-impl for when `P: Unpin`). But,
I think the decision to also add the `Unpin` bound for `impl Future` may
have been unnecessary. Or if that's not the case, I'd be very interested
to have the argument for why written down somewhere. The bound _appears_
to not be needed, since the presence of a `Pin<P>` should indicate that
it's safe to project to `Pin<&mut P::Target>` just like for
`Pin::as_mut`.
"spotlight" is not a very specific or self-explaining name.
Additionally, the dialog that it triggers is called "Notable traits".
So, "notable trait" is a better name.
* Rename `#[doc(spotlight)]` to `#[doc(notable_trait)]`
* Rename `#![feature(doc_spotlight)]` to `#![feature(doc_notable_trait)]`
* Update documentation
* Improve documentation
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
- 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```
