Add hint::assert_unchecked
This commit is contained in:
parent
5c97719393
commit
7556d6f61b
@ -106,6 +106,54 @@
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// Makes a *soundness* promise to the compiler that `cond` holds.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// This may allow the optimizer to simplify things,
|
||||
/// but it might also make the generated code slower.
|
||||
/// Either way, calling it will most likely make compilation take longer.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// This is a situational tool for micro-optimization, and is allowed to do nothing.
|
||||
/// Any use should come with a repeatable benchmark to show the value
|
||||
/// and allow removing it later should the optimizer get smarter and no longer need it.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// The more complicated the condition the less likely this is to be fruitful.
|
||||
/// For example, `assert_unchecked(foo.is_sorted())` is a complex enough value
|
||||
/// that the compiler is unlikely to be able to take advantage of it.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// There's also no need to `assert_unchecked` basic properties of things. For
|
||||
/// example, the compiler already knows the range of `count_ones`, so there's no
|
||||
/// benefit to `let n = u32::count_ones(x); assert_unchecked(n <= u32::BITS);`.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// If ever you're tempted to write `assert_unchecked(false)`, then you're
|
||||
/// actually looking for [`unreachable_unchecked()`].
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// You may know this from other places
|
||||
/// as [`llvm.assume`](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-assume-intrinsic)
|
||||
/// or [`__builtin_assume`](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#builtin-assume).
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// This promotes a correctness requirement to a soundness requirement.
|
||||
/// Don't do that without very good reason.
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// # Safety
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// `cond` must be `true`. It's immediate UB to call this with `false`.
|
||||
///
|
||||
#[inline(always)]
|
||||
#[doc(alias = "assume")]
|
||||
#[track_caller]
|
||||
#[unstable(feature = "hint_assert_unchecked", issue = "119131")]
|
||||
#[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_hint_assert_unchecked", issue = "119131")]
|
||||
pub const unsafe fn assert_unchecked(cond: bool) {
|
||||
// SAFETY: The caller promised `cond` is true.
|
||||
unsafe {
|
||||
intrinsics::assert_unsafe_precondition!(
|
||||
"hint::assert_unchecked must never be called when the condition is false",
|
||||
(cond: bool) => cond,
|
||||
);
|
||||
crate::intrinsics::assume(cond);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// Emits a machine instruction to signal the processor that it is running in
|
||||
/// a busy-wait spin-loop ("spin lock").
|
||||
///
|
||||
|
@ -2516,7 +2516,7 @@ pub fn const_eval_select<ARG: Tuple, F, G, RET>(
|
||||
/// the occasional mistake, and this check should help them figure things out.
|
||||
#[allow_internal_unstable(const_eval_select)] // permit this to be called in stably-const fn
|
||||
macro_rules! assert_unsafe_precondition {
|
||||
($name:expr, $([$($tt:tt)*])?($($i:ident:$ty:ty),*$(,)?) => $e:expr) => {
|
||||
($name:expr, $([$($tt:tt)*])?($($i:ident:$ty:ty),*$(,)?) => $e:expr $(,)?) => {
|
||||
if cfg!(debug_assertions) {
|
||||
// allow non_snake_case to allow capturing const generics
|
||||
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
|
||||
|
10
tests/ui/consts/const-assert-unchecked-ub.rs
Normal file
10
tests/ui/consts/const-assert-unchecked-ub.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
#![feature(hint_assert_unchecked)]
|
||||
#![feature(const_hint_assert_unchecked)]
|
||||
|
||||
const _: () = unsafe {
|
||||
let n = u32::MAX.count_ones();
|
||||
std::hint::assert_unchecked(n < 32); //~ ERROR evaluation of constant value failed
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
fn main() {
|
||||
}
|
9
tests/ui/consts/const-assert-unchecked-ub.stderr
Normal file
9
tests/ui/consts/const-assert-unchecked-ub.stderr
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
|
||||
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
|
||||
--> $DIR/const-assert-unchecked-ub.rs:6:5
|
||||
|
|
||||
LL | std::hint::assert_unchecked(n < 32);
|
||||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `assume` called with `false`
|
||||
|
||||
error: aborting due to 1 previous error
|
||||
|
||||
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user