Stabilize `const_waker`
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012.
For `local_waker` and `context_ext` related things, I just ~~moved them to dedicated feature gates and reused their own tracking issue (maybe it's better to open a new one later, but at least they should not be tracked under https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012 from the beginning IMO.)~~ reused their own feature gates as suggested by ``@tgross35.``
``@rustbot`` label: +T-libs-api
r? libs-api
Stabilize const `{integer}::from_str_radix` i.e. `const_int_from_str`
This PR stabilizes the feature `const_int_from_str`.
- ACP Issue: rust-lang/libs-team#74
- Implementation PR: rust-lang/rust#99322
- Part of Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#59133
API Change Diff:
```diff
impl {integer} {
- pub fn from_str_radix(src: &str, radix: u32) -> Result<Self, ParseIntError>;
+ pub const fn from_str_radix(src: &str, radix: u32) -> Result<Self, ParseIntError>;
}
impl ParseIntError {
- pub fn kind(&self) -> &IntErrorKind;
+ pub const fn kind(&self) -> &IntErrorKind;
}
```
This makes it easier to parse integers at compile-time, e.g.
the example from the Tracking Issue:
```rust
env!("SOMETHING").parse::<usize>().unwrap()
```
could now be achived with
```rust
match usize::from_str_radix(env!("SOMETHING"), 10) {
Ok(val) => val,
Err(err) => panic!("Invalid value for SOMETHING environment variable."),
}
```
rather than having to depend on a library that implements or manually implement the parsing at compile-time.
---
Checklist based on [Libs Stabilization Guide - When there's const involved](https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/development/stabilization.html#when-theres-const-involved)
I am treating this as a [partial stabilization](https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/development/stabilization.html#partial-stabilizations) as it shares a tracking issue (and is rather small), so directly opening the partial stabilization PR for the subset (feature `const_int_from_str`) being stabilized.
- [x] ping Constant Evaluation WG
- [x] no unsafe involved
- [x] no `#[allow_internal_unstable]`
- [ ] usage of `intrinsic::const_eval_select` rust-lang/rust#124625 in `from_str_radix_assert` to change the error message between compile-time and run-time
- [ ] [rust-labg/libs-api FCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124941#issuecomment-2207021921)
Start using `#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend]` in the standard library
This commit starts using `#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend]` in the standard library to improve some error messages. In this case we just hide a certain nightly only impl as suggested in #121521
The result in not perfect yet, but at least the `Yeet` suggestion is not shown anymore. I would consider that as a minor improvement.
This commit starts using `#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend]` in the
standard library to improve some error messages. In this case we just
hide a certain nightly only impl as suggested in #121521
Stabilize const unchecked conversion from u32 to char
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89259.
The functions in this PR were left out of the initial set of `feature(const_char_convert)` stabilizations in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102470, but have since been unblocked by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118979.
If `unsafe { from_u32_unchecked(u) }` is called in const with a value for which `from_u32(u)` returns None, we get the following compile error.
```rust
fn main() {
let _ = const { unsafe { char::from_u32_unchecked(0xd800) } };
}
```
```console
error[E0080]: it is undefined behavior to use this value
--> src/main.rs:2:19
|
2 | let _ = const { unsafe { char::from_u32_unchecked(0xd800) } };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ constructing invalid value: encountered 0x0000d800, but expected a valid unicode scalar value (in `0..=0x10FFFF` but not in `0xD800..=0xDFFF`)
|
= note: The rules on what exactly is undefined behavior aren't clear, so this check might be overzealous. Please open an issue on the rustc repository if you believe it should not be considered undefined behavior.
= note: the raw bytes of the constant (size: 4, align: 4) {
00 d8 00 00 │ ....
}
note: erroneous constant encountered
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let _ = const { unsafe { char::from_u32_unchecked(0xd800) } };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
In the dynamic exponent case, it's preferred to not increase code size,
so use solely the loop-based implementation there.
This shows about 4% penalty in the variable exponent benchmarks
on x86_64.
This includes a `From<legacy::RangeInclusive> for RangeInclusive` impl for convenience, instead of the `TryFrom` impl from the RFC.
Having `From` is highly convenient and the assertion is unlikely to be a problem in practice.
This includes re-exports of all existing `Range` types under `core::range`, plus the range-related traits (`RangeBounds`, `Step`, `OneSidedRange`) and the `Bound` enum.
Currently the iterators are just wrappers around the old range types,
and most other trait impls delegate to the old rage types as well.
Also includes an `.iter()` shorthand for `.clone().into_iter()`
This is possible now that inline const blocks are stable; the idea was
even mentioned as an alternative when `uninit_array()` was added:
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a
> standard library method that will be replaceable with
> `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
Const array repetition and inline const blocks are now stable (in the
next release), so that circumstance has come to pass, and we no longer
have reason to want `uninit_array()` other than convenience. Therefore,
let’s evaluate the inconvenience by not using `uninit_array()` in
the standard library, before potentially deleting it entirely.
Add assert_unsafe_precondition to unchecked_{add,sub,neg,mul,shl,shr} methods
(Old PR is haunted, opening a new one. See #117494 for previous discussion.)
This ensures that these preconditions are actually checked in debug mode, and hopefully should let people know if they messed up. I've also replaced the calls (I could find) in the code that use these intrinsics directly with those that use these methods, so that the asserts actually apply.
More discussions on people misusing these methods in the tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122.
Stabilize `split_at_checked`
Closes#119128
For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
Abort a process when FD ownership is violated
When an owned FD has already been closed before it's dropped that means something else touched an FD in ways it is not allowed to. At that point things can already be arbitrarily bad, e.g. clobbered mmaps. Recovery is not possible.
All we can do is hasten the fire.
Unlike the previous attempt in #124130 this shouldn't suffer from the possibility that FUSE filesystems can return arbitrary errors.
This reverts commit 049a917535.
The resolution to <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123282> is
that the `f16`/`f128` regression in the beta compiler was fixable
without a revert, so the commit adding `#[cfg(not(bootstrap))]` is no
longer useful (added in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123390>).
Revert this commit because not having these basic impls bootstrap-gated
simplifies everything else that uses them.
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
