It improves the performance of iterators using unchecked access when building in incremental mode
(due to the larger CGU count?). It might negatively affect incremental compile times for better runtime results,
but considering that the equivalent `next()` implementations also are `#[inline]` and usually are more complex this
should be ok.
```
./x.py bench library/core -i --stage 0 --test-args bench_trusted_random_access
OLD: 119,172 ns/iter
NEW: 17,714 ns/iter
```
Fix some confusing wording and improve slice-search-related docs
This adds more links between `contains` and `binary_search` because I do think they have some relevant connections. If your (big) slice happens to be sorted and you know it, surely you should be using `[3; 100].binary_search(&5).is_ok()` over `[3; 100].contains(&5)`?
This also fixes the confusing "searches this sorted X" wording which just sounds really weird because it doesn't know whether it's actually sorted. It should be but it may not be. The new wording should make it clearer that you will probably want to sort it and in the same sentence it also mentions the related function `contains`.
Similarly, this mentions `binary_search` on `contains`' docs.
This also fixes some other minor stuff and inconsistencies.
Some masks where defined as
```rust
const NONASCII_MASK: usize = 0x80808080_80808080u64 as usize;
```
where it was assumed that `usize` is never wider than 64, which is currently true.
To make those constants valid in a hypothetical 128-bit target, these constants have been redefined in an `usize`-width-agnostic way
```rust
const NONASCII_MASK: usize = usize::from_ne_bytes([0x80; size_of::<usize>()]);
```
There are already some cases where Rust anticipates the possibility of supporting 128-bit targets, such as not implementing `From<usize>` for `u64`.
Update binary_search example to instead redirect to partition_point
Inspired by discussion in the tracking issue for `Result::into_ok_or_err`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82223#issuecomment-1067098167
People are surprised by us not providing a `Result<T, T> -> T` conversion, and the main culprit for this confusion seems to be the `binary_search` API. We should instead redirect people to the equivalent API that implicitly does that `Result<T, T> -> T` conversion internally which should obviate the need for the `into_ok_or_err` function and give us time to work towards a more general solution that applies to all enums rather than just `Result` such as making or_patterns usable for situations like this via postfix `match`.
I choose to duplicate the example rather than simply moving it from `binary_search` to partition point because most of the confusion seems to arise when people are looking at `binary_search`. It makes sense to me to have the example presented immediately rather than requiring people to click through to even realize there is an example. If I had to put it in only one place I'd leave it in `binary_search` and remove it from `partition_point` but it seems pretty obviously relevant to `partition_point` so I figured the best option would be to duplicate it.
Bump bootstrap compiler to 1.61.0 beta
This PR bumps the bootstrap compiler to the 1.61.0 beta. The first commit changes the stage0 compiler, the second commit applies the "mechanical" changes and the third and fourth commits apply changes explained in the relevant comments.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
When encountering an unsatisfied trait bound, if there are no other
suggestions, mention all the types that *do* implement that trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `f32: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:22:6
|
LL | impl Baz<f32> for f32 { }
| ^^^^^^^^ the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `f32`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Foo`:
Option<T>
i32
str
note: required by a bound in `Baz`
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:18:31
|
LL | trait Baz<U: ?Sized> where U: Foo { }
| ^^^ required by this bound in `Baz`
```
Mention implementers of traits in `ImplObligation`s.
Do not mention other `impl`s for closures, ranges and `?`.
Add debug assertions to some unsafe functions
As suggested by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51713
~~Some similar code calls `abort()` instead of `panic!()` but aborting doesn't work in a `const fn`, and the intrinsic for doing dispatch based on whether execution is in a const is unstable.~~
This picked up some invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the compiler, and fixes them.
I can confirm that they do in fact pick up invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the wild, though the user experience is less-than-awesome:
```
Running unittests (target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50)
running 6 tests
error: test failed, to rerun pass '--lib'
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/home/ben/rle-decode-helper/target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50` (signal: 4, SIGILL: illegal instruction)
```
~~As best I can tell these changes produce a 6% regression in the runtime of `./x.py test` when `[rust] debug = true` is set.~~
Latest commit (6894d559bd) brings the additional overhead from this PR down to 0.5%, while also adding a few more assertions. I think this actually covers all the places in `core` that it is reasonable to check for safety requirements at runtime.
Thoughts?
allow arbitrary inherent impls for builtin types in core
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/487. Slightly adjusted after some talks with `@m-ou-se` about the requirements of `t-libs-api`.
This adds a crate attribute `#![rustc_coherence_is_core]` which allows arbitrary impls for builtin types in core.
For other library crates impls for builtin types should be avoided if possible. We do have to allow the existing stable impls however. To prevent us from accidentally adding more of these in the future, there is a second attribute `#[rustc_allow_incoherent_impl]` which has to be added to **all impl items**. This only supports impls for builtin types but can easily be extended to additional types in a future PR.
This implementation does not check for overlaps in these impls. Perfectly checking that requires us to check the coherence of these incoherent impls in every crate, as two distinct dependencies may add overlapping methods. It should be easy enough to detect if it goes wrong and the attribute is only intended for use inside of std.
The first two commits are mostly unrelated cleanups.
These debug assertions are all implemented only at runtime using
`const_eval_select`, and in the error path they execute
`intrinsics::abort` instead of being a normal debug assertion to
minimize the impact of these assertions on code size, when enabled.
Of all these changes, the bounds checks for unchecked indexing are
expected to be most impactful (case in point, they found a problem in
rustc).
Constify `Index{,Mut}` for `[T]`, `str`, and `[T; N]`
Several panic functions were rewired (via `const_eval_select`) to simpler implementations that do not require formatting for compile-time usage.
r? ```@oli-obk```
core: Implement ASCII trim functions on byte slices
Hi ````````@rust-lang/libs!```````` This is a feature that I wished for when implementing serial protocols with microcontrollers. Often these protocols may contain leading or trailing whitespace, which needs to be removed. Because oftentimes drivers will operate on the byte level, decoding to unicode and checking for unicode whitespace is unnecessary overhead.
This PR adds three new methods to byte slices:
- `trim_ascii_start`
- `trim_ascii_end`
- `trim_ascii`
I did not find any pre-existing discussions about this, which surprises me a bit. Maybe I'm missing something, and this functionality is already possible through other means? There's https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2547 ("Trim methods on slices"), but that has a different purpose.
As per the [std dev guide](https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/feature-lifecycle/new-unstable-features.html), this is a proposed implementation without any issue / RFC. If this is the wrong process, please let me know. However, I thought discussing code is easier than discussing a mere idea, and hacking on the stdlib was fun.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94035
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
Drop guards in slice sorting derive src pointers from &mut T, which is invalidated by interior mutation in comparison
I tried to run https://github.com/rust-lang/miri-test-libstd on `alloc` with `-Zmiri-track-raw-pointers`, and got a failure on the test `slice::panic_safe`. The test failure has nothing to do with panic safety, it's from how the test tests for panic safety.
I minimized the test failure into this very silly program:
```rust
use std::cell::Cell;
use std::cmp::Ordering;
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Evil(Cell<usize>);
fn main() {
let mut input = vec![Evil(Cell::new(0)); 3];
// Hits the bug pattern via CopyOnDrop in core
input.sort_unstable_by(|a, _b| {
a.0.set(0);
Ordering::Less
});
// Hits the bug pattern via InsertionHole in alloc
input.sort_by(|_a, b| {
b.0.set(0);
Ordering::Less
});
}
```
To fix this, I'm just removing the mutability/uniqueness where it wasn't required.
Track caller of slice split and swap
Improves error location for `slice.split_at*()` and `slice.swap()`.
These are generic inline functions, so the `#[track_caller]` on them is free — only changes a value of an argument already passed to panicking code.
The src pointers in CopyOnDrop and InsertionHole used to be *mut T, and
were derived via automatic conversion from &mut T. According to Stacked
Borrows 2.1, this means that those pointers become invalidated by
interior mutation in the comparison function.
But there's no need for mutability in this code path. Thus, we can
change the drop guards to use *const and derive those from &T.
