Spelling library
Split per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110392
I can squash once people are happy w/ the changes. It's really uncommon for large sets of changes to be perfectly acceptable w/o at least some changes.
I probably won't have time to respond until tomorrow or the next day
I was looking into `array::IntoIter` optimization, and noticed that it wasn't annotating the loads with `noundef` for simple things like `array::IntoIter<i32, N>`.
Turned out to be a more general problem as `MaybeUninit::assume_init_read` isn't marking the load as initialized (<https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Mxd8TPTnv>), which is unfortunate since that's basically its reason to exist.
This PR lowers `ptr::read(p)` to `copy *p` in MIR, which fortuitiously also improves the IR we give to LLVM for things like `mem::replace`.
add ptr::from_{ref,mut}
We have methods to avoid almost all `as` casts around raw pointer handling, except for the initial cast from reference to raw pointer. These new methods close that gap.
(I also moved `null_mut` next to `null` to keep the file consistently organized.)
r? libs-api
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106116
Fix mod_inv termination for the last iteration
On usize=u64 platforms, the 4th iteration would overflow the `mod_gate` back to 0. Similarly for usize=u32 platforms, the 3rd iteration would overflow much the same way.
I tested various approaches to resolving this, including approaches with `saturating_mul` and `widening_mul` to a double usize. Turns out LLVM likes `mul_with_overflow` the best. In fact now, that LLVM can see the iteration count is limited, it will happily unroll the loop into a nice linear sequence.
You will also notice that the code around the loop got simplified somewhat. Now that LLVM is handling the loop nicely, there isn’t any more reasons to manually unroll the first iteration out of the loop (though looking at the code today I’m not sure all that complexity was necessary in the first place).
Fixes#103361
interpret: support for per-byte provenance
Also factors the provenance map into its own module.
The third commit does the same for the init mask. I can move it in a separate PR if you prefer.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2181
r? `@oli-obk`
Try to say that memory outside the AM is always exposed
cc ``@Gankra`` ``@thomcc``
I want to confidently tell people that they can use `from_exposed_addr` to get a pointer for doing MMIO and/or other hardware interactions done with volatile reads/writes at particular addresses outside the Rust AM. Currently, the docs indicate that would be UB.
With this change, now the docs indicate that this is intended to be a valid use of `from_exposed_addr`.
r? ``@RalfJung``
Even nicer errors from assert_unsafe_precondition
For example, now running `cargo test` with this patch I get things like:
```
$ cargo +stage1 test
Finished test [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.01s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/malloc_buf-9d105ddf86862995)
running 5 tests
thread 'tests::test_null_buf' panicked at 'unsafe precondition violated: is_aligned_and_not_null(data) &&
crate::mem::size_of::<T>().saturating_mul(len) <= isize::MAX as usize', /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/slice/raw.rs:93:9
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
thread panicked while panicking. aborting.
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/tmp/malloc_buf-1.0.0/target/debug/deps/malloc_buf-9d105ddf86862995` (signal: 6, SIGABRT: process abort signal)
```
This is still not perfect, but these are better for another PR:
* `stringify!` is trying to do clever pretty-printing on the `expr` inside `assert_unsafe_precondition` and can even add a newline.
* It would be nice to print a bit more information about where the problem is. Perhaps this is `cfg_attr(debug_assertions, track_caller)`, or perhaps it the function name added to `Location`.
cc ``@RalfJung`` this is what I was thinking of for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102732#discussion_r989068907
Use ptr::metadata in <[T]>::len implementation
This avoids duplication of ptr::metadata code.
I believe this is acceptable as the previous approach essentially duplicated `ptr::metadata` because back then `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` annotation did not exist.
I would like somebody to ping `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` as the documentation says:
> Always ping `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` if you are adding more rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable attributes to any const fn.
On usize=u64 platforms, the 4th iteration would overflow the `mod_gate`
back to 0. Similarly for usize=u32 platforms, the 3rd iteration would
overflow much the same way.
I tested various approaches to resolving this, including approaches with
`saturating_mul` and `widening_mul` to a double usize. Turns out LLVM
likes `mul_with_overflow` the best. In fact now, that LLVM can see the
iteration count is limited, it will happily unroll the loop into a nice
linear sequence.
You will also notice that the code around the loop got simplified
somewhat. Now that LLVM is handling the loop nicely, there isn’t any
more reasons to manually unroll the first iteration out of the loop
(though looking at the code today I’m not sure all that complexity was
necessary in the first place).
Fixes#103361
Following up on #92964, only add default trait implementations for the
`c-unwind` family of function pointers. The previous attempt in #92964
added trait implementations for many more ABIs and ran into concerns
regarding the increase in size of the libcore rlib.
An attempt to abstract away function pointer types behind a unified
trait to reduce the duplication of trait impls is being discussed in #99531
but this change looks to be blocked on a lang MCP.
Following @RalfJung's suggestion in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99531#issuecomment-1233440142,
this commit is another cut at #92964 but it _only_ adds the impls for
`extern "C-unwind" fn` and `unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn`.
I am interested in landing this patch to unblock the stabilization of
the `c_unwind` feature.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2945
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
