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.
More slice::partition_point examples
After seeing the discussion of `binary_search` vs `partition_point` in #101999, I thought some more example code could be helpful.
Constify slice.split_at_mut(_unchecked)
Tracking Issue: [Tracking Issue for const_slice_split_at_mut](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101804)
Feature gate: `#![feature(const_slice_split_at_mut)]`
Still requires const_mut_refs to be actually used, but this feature removes the need to manually re implement these functions in a user crate.
Clarify `[T]::select_nth_unstable*` return values
In cases where the nth element is not unique within the slice, it is not
correct to say that the values in the returned triplet include ones for
"all elements" less/greater than that at the given index: indeed one (or
more) such values would then also contain elements equal to that at
the given index.
The text proposed here clarifies exactly what is returned, but in so
doing it is also documenting an implementation detail that previously
wasn't detailed: namely that the returned slices are slices into the
reordered slice. I don't think this can be contentious, because the
lifetimes of those returned slices are bound to that of the original
(now reordered) slice—so there really isn't any other reasonable
implementation that could have this behaviour; but nevertheless it's
probably best if `@rust-lang/libs-api` give it a nod?
Fixes#97982
r? `@m-ou-se`
`@rustbot` label +A-docs +C-bug +T-libs-api -T-libs
Make ZST checks in core/alloc more readable
There's a bunch of these checks because of special handing for ZSTs in various unsafe implementations of stuff.
This lets them be `T::IS_ZST` instead of `mem::size_of::<T>() == 0` every time, making them both more readable and more terse.
*Not* proposed for stabilization. Would be `pub(crate)` except `alloc` wants to use it too.
(And while it doesn't matter now, if we ever get something like #85836 making it a const can help codegen be simpler.)
There's a bunch of these checks because of special handing for ZSTs in various unsafe implementations of stuff.
This lets them be `T::IS_ZST` instead of `mem::size_of::<T>() == 0` every time, making them both more readable and more terse.
*Not* proposed for stabilization at this time. Would be `pub(crate)` except `alloc` wants to use it too.
(And while it doesn't matter now, if we ever get something like 85836 making it a const can help codegen be simpler.)
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
make slice::{split_at,split_at_unchecked} const functions
Now that `slice::from_raw_parts` is const in stable 1.64, it makes sense to have `split_at` const as well, otherwise unsafe code is required to achieve a const equivalent.
Replace most uses of `pointer::offset` with `add` and `sub`
As PR title says, it replaces `pointer::offset` in compiler and standard library with `pointer::add` and `pointer::sub`. This generally makes code cleaner, easier to grasp and removes (or, well, hides) integer casts.
This is generally trivially correct, `.offset(-constant)` is just `.sub(constant)`, `.offset(usized as isize)` is just `.add(usized)`, etc. However in some cases we need to be careful with signs of things.
r? ````@scottmcm````
_split off from #100746_
Add `[f32]::sort_floats` and `[f64]::sort_floats`
It's inconvenient to sort a slice or Vec of floats, compared to sorting integers. To simplify numeric code, add a convenience method to `[f32]` and `[f64]` to sort them using `sort_unstable_by` with `total_cmp`.
It's inconvenient to sort a slice or Vec of floats, compared to sorting
integers. To simplify numeric code, add a convenience method to `[f32]`
and `[f64]` to sort them using `sort_unstable_by` with `total_cmp`.
In cases where the nth element is not unique within the slice, it is not
correct to say that the values in the returned triplet include ones for
"all elements" less/greater than that at the given index: indeed one (or
more) such values would then laso contain values equal to that at the
given index.
The text proposed here clarifies exactly what is returned, but in so
doing it is also documenting an implementation detail that previously
wasn't detailed: namely that the return slices are slices into the
reordered slice. I don't think this can be contentious, because the
lifetimes of those returned slices are bound to that of the original
(now reordered) slice—so there really isn't any other reasonable
implementation that could have this behaviour; but nevertheless it's
probably best if @rust-lang/libs-api give it a nod?
Fixes#97982
r? m-ou-se
@rustbot label +A-docs C-bug +T-libs-api
Clarify slice and Vec iteration order
While already being inferable from the doc examples, it wasn't fully specified. This is the only logical way to do a slice iterator, so I think this should be uncontroversial. It also improves the `Vec::into_iter` example to better show the order and that the iterator returns owned values.
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.
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`
