Implement `as_chunks` with `split_at_unchecked`
We were discussing various ways to do [this on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/273541522815713281/1236946363120619521), and in the process I noticed that <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1P16P37Go> is emitting a panic path inside `as_chunks`. It optimizes out in release, but we could just not do that in the first place.
We're already doing unsafe code that depends on this value being calculated correctly, so might as well call `split_at_unchecked` instead of `split_at`.
Use `unchecked_sub` in `split_at`
LLVM currently isn't figuring it out on its own, even in the checked version where it hypothetically could.
Before: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/PEY38YrKs>
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub i64 %x.1, %n
```
After:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%4 = getelementptr inbounds float, ptr %x.0, i64 %n
%5 = sub nuw i64 %x.1, %n
```
This is not using the wrapper because there's already a ubcheck covering it, so I don't want this to get a second one once #121571 lands.
---
This is basically the same as #108763, since `split_at` is essentially doing two `get_unchecked`s.
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...
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Stabilize slice_split_at_unchecked
Greetings!
I took the opportunity, and I tried to stabilize the `slice_split_at_unchecked` feature. I followed the guidelines, and I hope everything was done correctly 🤞 .
Closes#76014
Add slice::try_range
This adds a fallible version of the unstable `slice::range` (tracking: #76393) which is highly requested in the tracking issue.
Hoping this can slide by without an ACP (since the feature is already being tracked), but let me know otherwise.
align_offset, align_to: no longer allow implementations to spuriously fail to align
For a long time, we have allowed `align_offset` to fail to compute a properly aligned offset, and `align_to` to return a smaller-than-maximal "middle slice". This was done to cover the implementation of `align_offset` in const-eval and Miri. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420 for more background. For about the same amount of time, this has caused confusion and surprise, where people didn't realize they have to write their code to be defensive against `align_offset` failures.
Another way to put this is: the specification is effectively non-deterministic, and non-determinism is hard to test for -- in particular if the implementation everyone uses to test always produces the same reliable result, and nobody expects it to be non-deterministic to begin with.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117840, Miri has stopped making use of this liberty in the spec; it now always behaves like rustc. That only leaves const-eval as potential motivation for this behavior. I do not think this is sufficient motivation. Currently, none of the relevant functions are stably const: `align_offset` is unstably const, `align_to` is not const at all. I propose that if we ever want to make these const-stable, we just accept the fact that they can behave differently at compile-time vs at run-time. This is not the end of the world, and it seems to be much less surprising to programmers than unexpected non-determinism. (Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3352.)
`@thomcc` has repeatedly made it clear that they strongly dislike the non-determinism in align_offset, so I expect they will support this. `@oli-obk,` what do you think? Also, whom else should we involve? The primary team responsible is clearly libs-api, so I will nominate this for them. However, allowing const-evaluated code to behave different from run-time code is t-lang territory. The thing is, this is not stabilizing anything t-lang-worthy immediately, but it still does make a decision we will be bound to: if we accept this change, then
- either `align_offset`/`align_to` can never be called in const fn,
- or we allow compile-time behavior to differ from run-time behavior.
So I will nominate for t-lang as well, with the question being: are you okay with accepting either of these outcomes (without committing to which one, just accepting that it has to be one of them)? This closes the door to "have `align_offset` and `align_to` at compile-time and also always have compile-time behavior match run-time behavior".
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62420
Operations such as starts_with, ends_with, strip_prefix and strip_suffix
can be either strict (do not consider a slice to be a prefix/suffix of
itself) or not. In Rust's case, they are not strict. Add a few phrases to
the documentation to clarify this.
Add examples for some methods on slices
Adds some examples to some methods on slice.
`is_empty` didn't have an example for an empty slice, even though `str` and the collections all have one, so I added that in.
`first_mut` and `last_mut` didn't have an example for what happens when the slice is empty, whereas `first` and `last` do, so I added that too.
Clarify ambiguity in select_nth_unstable docs
Original docs for `select_nth_unstable` family of functions were ambiguous as to whether "the element at `index`" was the element at `index` before the function reordered the elements or after the function reordered the elements.
The most helpful change in this PR is to change the given examples to make this absolutely clear. Before, "the element at `index`" was the same value before and after the reordering, so it didn't help disambiguate the meaning. I've changed the example for `select_nth_unstable` and `select_nth_unstable_by` so that "the element at `index`" is different before and after the reordering, which clears up the ambiguity. The function `select_nth_unstable_by_key` already had an example that was unambiguous.
In an attempt to clear up the ambiguity from the get-go, I've added a bit of redundancy to the text. Now the docs refer to "the element at `index` *after the reordering*".
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Refactor the if/else checking on cmp::Ordering variants to a
"branchless" reassignment of left and right. This change results
in fewer branches and instructions.
Use `assert_unchecked` instead of `assume` intrinsic in the standard library
Now that a public wrapper for the `assume` intrinsic exists, we can use it in the standard library.
CC #119131
Use `bool` instead of `PartiolOrd` as return value of the comparison closure in `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by`
Changes the function signature of the closure given to `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by` to return a `bool` instead of a `PartiolOrd` as suggested by the libs-api team here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53485#issuecomment-1766411980.
This means these functions now return true if the closure returns true for all the pairs of values.
Introduce split_at_checked and split_at_mut_checked methods to slices
types (including str) which are non-panicking versions of split_at and
split_at_mut respectively. This is analogous to get method being
non-panicking version of indexing.
Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
This PR does a few different things based around stabilizing `slice_first_last_chunk`. They are split up so this PR can be by-commit reviewed, I can move parts to a separate PR if desired.
This feature provides a very elegant API to extract arrays from either end of a slice, such as for parsing integers from binary data.
## Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/69
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774
This stabilizes the functionality from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774:
```rust
impl [T] {
pub const fn first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn split_first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T; N], &[T])>;
pub fn split_first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T; N], &mut [T])>;
pub const fn split_last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T], &[T; N])>;
pub fn split_last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T; N])>;
}
```
Const stabilization is included for all non-mut methods, which are blocked on `const_mut_refs`. This change includes marking the trivial function `slice_split_at_unchecked` const-stable for internal use (but not fully stable).
## Remove `split_array` slice methods
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83233#pullrequestreview-780315524
This PR also removes the following unstable methods from the `split_array` feature, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091:
```rust
impl<T> [T] {
pub fn split_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T; N], &[T]);
pub fn split_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T; N], &mut [T]);
pub fn rsplit_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T], &[T; N]);
pub fn rsplit_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T; N]);
}
```
This is done because discussion at #90091 and its implementation PR indicate a strong preference for nonpanicking APIs that return `Option`. The only difference between functions under the `split_array` and `slice_first_last_chunk` features is `Option` vs. panic, so remove the duplicates as part of this stabilization.
This does not affect the array methods from `split_array`. We will want to revisit these once `generic_const_exprs` is further along.
## Reverse order of return tuple for `split_last_chunk{,_mut}`
An unresolved question for #111774 is whether to return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` (`(&[T], &[T; N])`) or the reverse (`(&[T; N], &[T])`), from `split_last_chunk` and `split_last_chunk_mut`. It is currently implemented as `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)` which matches `split_last -> (&T, &[T])`. The first commit changes these to `(&[T], &[T; N])` for these reasons:
- More consistent with other splitting methods that return multiple values: `str::rsplit_once`, `slice::split_at{,_mut}`, `slice::align_to` all return tuples with the items in order
- More intuitive (arguably opinion, but it is consistent with other language elements like pattern matching `let [a, b, rest @ ..] ...`
- If we ever added a varidic way to obtain multiple chunks, it would likely return something in order: `.split_many_last::<(2, 4)>() -> (&[T], &[T; 2], &[T; 4])`
- It is the ordering used in the `rsplit_array` methods
I think the inconsistency with `split_last` could be acceptable in this case, since for `split_last` the scalar `&T` doesn't have any internal order to maintain with the other items.
## Unresolved questions
Do we want to reserve the same names on `[u8; N]` to avoid inference confusion? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117561#issuecomment-1793388647
---
`slice_first_last_chunk` has only been around since early 2023, but `split_array` has been around since 2021.
`@rustbot` label -T-libs +T-libs-api -T-libs +needs-fcp
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval,` `@scottmcm` who raised this topic, `@clarfonthey` implementer of `slice_first_last_chunk` `@jethrogb` implementer of `split_array`
Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Stabilizing.20array-from-slice.20*something*.3FFixes: #111774
