Add a `try_collect()` helper method to `Iterator`
Implement `Iterator::try_collect()` as a helper around `Iterator::collect()` as discussed [here](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/idea-fallible-iterator-mapping-with-try-map/15715/5?u=a.lafrance).
First time contributor so definitely open to any feedback about my implementation! Specifically wondering if I should open a tracking issue for the unstable feature I introduced.
As the main participant in the internals discussion: r? `@scottmcm`
Add documentation to more `From::from` implementations.
For users looking at documentation through IDE popups, this gives them relevant information rather than the generic trait documentation wording “Performs the conversion”. For users reading the documentation for a specific type for any reason, this informs them when the conversion may allocate or copy significant memory versus when it is always a move or cheap copy.
Notes on specific cases:
* The new documentation for `From<T> for T` explains that it is not a conversion at all.
* Also documented `impl<T, U> Into<U> for T where U: From<T>`, the other central blanket implementation of conversion.
* The new documentation for construction of maps and sets from arrays of keys mentions the handling of duplicates. Future work could be to do this for *all* code paths that convert an iterable to a map or set.
* I did not add documentation to conversions of a specific error type to a more general error type.
* I did not add documentation to unstable code.
This change was prepared by searching for the text "From<... for" and so may have missed some cases that for whatever reason did not match. I also looked for `Into` impls but did not find any worth documenting by the above criteria.
Destabilize cfg(target_has_atomic_load_store = ...)
This was not intended to be stabilized yet.
This keeps the cfg_target_has_atomic feature gate name since compiler-builtins otherwise depends on it and I'd rather not try to manage a bump across a crates.io published repository given the time-sensitivity here (we need to land this quickly to avoid a beta backport).
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32976
r? `@Amanieu`
Make [u8]::cmp implementation branchless
The current implementation generates rather ugly assembly code, branching when the common parts are equal. By performing the comparison of the lengths upfront using a subtraction, the assembly gets much prettier: https://godbolt.org/z/4e5fnEKGd.
This will probably not impact speed too much, as the expensive part is in most cases the `memcmp`, but it sure looks better (I'm porting a sorting algorithm currently, and that branch just bothered me).
Since `decl_macro`s and/or `Span::def_site()` is deemed quite unstable,
no public-facing macro that relies on it can hope to be, itself, stabilized.
We circumvent the issue by no longer relying on field privacy for safety and,
instead, relying on an unstable feature-gate to act as the gate keeper for
non users of the macro (thanks to `allow_internal_unstable`).
This is technically not correct (since a `nightly` user could technically enable
the feature and cause unsoundness with it); or, in other words, this makes the
feature-gate used to gate the access to the field be (technically unsound, and
in practice) `unsafe`. Hence it having `unsafe` in its name.
Back to the macro, we go back to `macro_rules!` / `mixed_site()`-span rules thanks
to declaring the `decl_macro` as `semitransparent`, which is a hack to basically have
`pub macro_rules!`
Co-Authored-By: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
add diagnostic items for clippy's `trim_split_whitespace`
Adding the following diagnostic items:
* str_split_whitespace,
* str_trim,
* str_trim_start,
* str_trim_end
They are needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8575
r? `@flip1995`
add module-level documentation for vec's in-place iteration
As requested in the last libs team meeting and during previous reviews.
Feel free to point out any gaps you encounter, after all non-obvious things may with hindsight seem obvious to me.
r? `@yaahc`
CC `@steffahn`
Rename `~const Drop` to `~const Destruct`
r? `@oli-obk`
Completely switching to `~const Destructible` would be rather complicated, so it seems best to add it for now and wait for it to be backported to beta in the next release.
The rationale is to prevent complications such as #92149 and #94803 by introducing an entirely new trait. And `~const Destructible` reads a bit better than `~const Drop`. Name Bikesheddable.
Add u16::is_utf16_surrogate
Right now, there are methods in the standard library for encoding and decoding UTF-16, but at least for the moment, there aren't any methods specifically for `u16` to help work with UTF-16 data. Since the full logic already exists, this wouldn't really add any code, just expose what's already there.
This method in particular is useful for working with the data returned by Windows `OsStrExt::encode_wide`. Initially, I was planning to also offer a `TryFrom<u16> for char`, but decided against it for now. There is plenty of code in rustc that could be rewritten to use this method, but I only checked within the standard library to replace them.
I think that offering more UTF-16-related methods to u16 would be useful, but I think this one is a good start. For example, one useful method might be `u16::is_pattern_whitespace`, which would check if something is the Unicode `Pattern_Whitespace` category. We can get away with this because all of the `Pattern_Whitespace` characters are in the basic multilingual plane, and hence we don't need to check for surrogates.
Provide more useful documentation of conversion methods
I thought that the documentation for these methods needed to be a bit more explanatory for new users. For advanced users, the comments are relatively unnecessary. I think it would be useful to explain precisely what the method does. As a new user, when you see the `into` method, where the type is inferred, if you are new you don't even know what you convert to, because it is implicit. I believe this can help new users understand.
I thought that the documentation for these methods needed to be a bit more explanatory for new users. For advanced users, the comments are relatively unnecessary. I think it would be useful to explain precisely what the method does. As a new user, when you see the `into` method, where the type is inferred, if you are new you don't even know what you convert to, because it is implicit. I believe this can help new users understand.
Document that `Option<extern "abi" fn>` discriminant elision applies for any ABI
The current phrasing was not very clear on that aspect.
r? `@RalfJung`
`@rustbot` modify labels: A-docs A-ffi
Derive Eq for std::cmp::Ordering, instead of using manual impl.
This allows consts of type Ordering to be used in patterns, and with feature(adt_const_params) allows using `Ordering` as a const generic parameter.
Currently, `std::cmp::Ordering` implements `Eq` using a manually written `impl Eq for Ordering {}`, instead of `derive(Eq)`. This means that it does not implement `StructuralEq`.
This commit removes the manually written impl, and adds `derive(Eq)` to `Ordering`, so that it will implement `StructuralEq`.
Let `try_collect` take advantage of `try_fold` overrides
No public API changes.
With this change, `try_collect` (#94047) is no longer going through the `impl Iterator for &mut impl Iterator`, and thus will be able to use `try_fold` overrides instead of being forced through `next` for every element.
Here's the test added, to see that it fails before this PR (once a new enough nightly is out): https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=462f2896f2fed2c238ee63ca1a7e7c56
This might as well go to the same person as my last `try_process` PR (#93572), so
r? ``@yaahc``
Stabilize ADX target feature
This is a continuation of #60109, which noted that while the ADX intrinsics were stabilized, the corresponding target feature never was.
This PR follows the same general structure and stabilizes the ADX target feature.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44839 - tracking issue for target feature
Format core and std macro rules, removing needless surrounding blocks
Many of the asserting and printing macros in `core` and `std` are written with prehistoric-looking formatting, like this:
335ffbfa54/library/std/src/macros.rs (L96-L101)
In modern Rust style this would conventionally be written as follows instead, always using braces and a trailing semicolon on the macro arms:
af53809c87/library/std/src/macros.rs (L98-L105)
Getting rid of the unneeded braces inside the expansion reduces extraneous indentation in macro-expanded code. For example:
```rust
println!("repro {}", true);
```
```rust
// before:
{
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
};
```
```rust
// after:
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
```
This is a continuation of #60109, which noted that while the ADX
intrinsics were stabilized, the corresponding target feature never was.
This PR follows the same general structure and stabilizes the ADX target
feature.
Add `Atomic*::get_mut_slice`
This PR adds the inverse of `Atomic*::from_mut_slice` introduced in #94384 with the following API:
```rust
// core::sync::atomic
impl Atomic* {
fn get_mut_slice(this: &mut [Self]) -> &mut [*];
}
```
cc `@cuviper`
-----
For now I've used the same tracking issue as `Atomic*::from_mut_slice`, should I open a new one?
Enable conditional checking of values in the Rust codebase
This pull-request enable conditional checking of (well known) values in the Rust codebase.
Well known values were added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94362. All the `target_*` values are taken from all the built-in targets which is why some extra values were needed do be added as they are not (yet ?) defined in any built-in targets.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Make float parsing docs more comprehensive
I was working on some code with some specialized restrictions on float parsing. I noticed the doc comments for `f32::from_str` and `f64::from_str` were missing several cases of valid inputs that are otherwise difficult to discover without looking at source code.
I'm not sure if the doc comments were initially intended to contain a comprehensive description of valid inputs, but I figured it's useful to include these extra cases for reference.
Rename `IntoFuture::Future` to `IntoFuture::IntoFuture`
Ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67644#issuecomment-1051401459
This renames `IntoFuture::Future` to `IntoFuture::IntoFuture`. This adds the `Into*` prefix to the associated type, similar to the [`IntoIterator::IntoIter`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.IntoIterator.html#associatedtype.IntoIter) associated type. It's my mistake we didn't do so in the first place. This fixes that and brings the two closer together. Thanks!
### References
__`IntoIterator` trait def__
```rust
pub trait IntoIterator {
type Item;
type IntoIter: Iterator<Item = Self::Item>;
fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter;
}
```
__`IntoFuture` trait def__
```rust
pub trait IntoFuture {
type Output;
type IntoFuture: Future<Output = Self::Output>; // Prior to this PR: `type Future:`
fn into_future(self) -> Self::IntoFuture;
}
```
cc/ `@eholk` `@rust-lang/wg-async`
Stabilise inherent_ascii_escape (FCP in #77174)
Implements #77174, which completed its FCP.
This does *not* deprecate any existing methods or structs, as that is tracked in #93887. That stated, people should prefer using `u8::escape_ascii` to `std::ascii::escape_default`.
More practical examples for `Option::and_then` & `Result::and_then`
To be blatantly honest, I think the current example given for `Option::and_then` is objectively terrible. (No offence to whoever wrote them initially.)
```rust
fn sq(x: u32) -> Option<u32> { Some(x * x) }
fn nope(_: u32) -> Option<u32> { None }
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(sq).and_then(sq), Some(16));
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(sq).and_then(nope), None);
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(nope).and_then(sq), None);
assert_eq!(None.and_then(sq).and_then(sq), None);
```
Current example:
- does not demonstrate that `and_then` converts `Option<T>` to `Option<U>`
- is far removed from any realistic code
- generally just causes more confusion than it helps
So I replaced them with two blocks:
- the first one shows basic usage (including the type conversion)
- the second one shows an example of typical usage
Same thing with `Result::and_then`.
Hopefully this helps with clarity.
Change `ResultShunt` to be generic over `Try`
Just a refactor (and rename) for now, so it's not `Result`-specific.
This could be used for a future `Iterator::try_collect`, or similar, but anything like that is left for a future PR.
Add {floor,ceil}_char_boundary methods to str
This is technically already used internally by the standard library in the form of `truncate_to_char_boundary`.
Essentially these are two building blocks to allow for approximate string truncation, where you want to cut off the string at "approximately" a given length in bytes but don't know exactly where the character boundaries lie. It's also a good candidate for the standard library as it can easily be done naively, but would be difficult to properly optimise. Although the existing code that's done in error messages is done naively, this code will explicitly only check a window of 4 bytes since we know that a boundary must lie in that range, and because it will make it possible to vectorise.
Although this method doesn't take into account graphemes or other properties, this would still be a required building block for splitting that takes those into account. For example, if you wanted to split at a grapheme boundary, you could take your approximate splitting point and then determine the graphemes immediately following and preceeding the split. If you then notice that these two graphemes could be merged, you can decide to either include the whole grapheme or exclude it depending on whether you decide splitting should shrink or expand the string.
This takes the most conservative approach and just offers the raw indices to the user, and they can decide how to use them. That way, the methods are as useful as possible despite having as few methods as possible.
(Note: I'll add some tests and a tracking issue if it's decided that this is worth including.)
Just a refactor (and rename) for now, so it's not `Result`-specific.
This could be used for a future `Iterator::try_collect`, or similar, but anything like that is left for a future PR.
Impl {Add,Sub,Mul,Div,Rem,BitXor,BitOr,BitAnd}Assign<$t> for Wrapping<$t> for rust 1.60.0
Tracking issue #93204
This is about adding basic integer operations to the `Wrapping` type:
```rust
let mut value = Wrapping(2u8);
value += 3u8;
value -= 1u8;
value *= 2u8;
value /= 2u8;
value %= 2u8;
value ^= 255u8;
value |= 123u8;
value &= 2u8;
```
Because this adds stable impls on a stable type, it runs into the following issue if an `#[unstable(...)]` attribute is used:
```
an `#[unstable]` annotation here has no effect
note: see issue #55436 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55436> for more information
```
This means - if I understood this correctly - the new impls have to be stabilized instantly.
Which in turn means, this PR has to kick of an FCP on the tracking issue as well?
This impl is analog to 1c0dc1810d#92356 for the `Saturating` type ``@dtolnay`` ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
Fix invalid special casing of the unreachable! macro
This pull-request fix an invalid special casing of the `unreachable!` macro in the same way the `panic!` macro was solved, by adding two new internal only macros `unreachable_2015` and `unreachable_2021` edition dependent and turn `unreachable!` into a built-in macro that do dispatching. This logic is stolen from the `panic!` macro.
~~This pull-request also adds an internal feature `format_args_capture_non_literal` that allows capturing arguments from formatted string that expanded from macros. The original RFC #2795 mentioned this as a future possibility. This feature is [required](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92137#issuecomment-1018630522) because of concatenation that needs to be done inside the macro:~~
```rust
$crate::concat!("internal error: entered unreachable code: ", $fmt)
```
**In summary** the new behavior for the `unreachable!` macro with this pr is:
Edition 2021:
```rust
let x = 5;
unreachable!("x is {x}");
```
```
internal error: entered unreachable code: x is 5
```
Edition <= 2018:
```rust
let x = 5;
unreachable!("x is {x}");
```
```
internal error: entered unreachable code: x is {x}
```
Also note that the change in this PR are **insta-stable** and **breaking changes** but this a considered as being a [bug](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92137#issuecomment-998441613).
If someone could start a perf run and then a crater run this would be appreciated.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92137
Rollup of 2 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #90998 (Require const stability attribute on all stable functions that are `const`)
- #93489 (Mark the panic_no_unwind lang item as nounwind)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Mark the panic_no_unwind lang item as nounwind
This has 2 effects:
- It helps LLVM when inlining since it doesn't need to generate landing pads for `panic_no_unwind`.
- It makes it sound for a panic handler to unwind even if `PanicInfo::can_unwind` returns true. This will simply cause another panic once the unwind tries to go past the `panic_no_unwind` lang item. Eventually this will cause a stack overflow, which is safe.
Require const stability attribute on all stable functions that are `const`
This PR requires all stable functions (of all kinds) that are `const fn` to have a `#[rustc_const_stable]` or `#[rustc_const_unstable]` attribute. Stability was previously implied if omitted; a follow-up PR is planned to change the fallback to be unstable.
Optimize `core::str::Chars::count`
I wrote this a while ago after seeing this function as a bottleneck in a profile, but never got around to contributing it. I saw it again, and so here it is. The implementation is fairly complex, but I tried to explain what's happening at both a high level (in the header comment for the file), and in line comments in the impl. Hopefully it's clear enough.
This implementation (`case00_cur_libcore` in the benchmarks below) is somewhat consistently around 4x to 5x faster than the old implementation (`case01_old_libcore` in the benchmarks below), for a wide variety of workloads, without regressing performance on any of the workload sizes I've tried.
I also improved the benchmarks for this code, so that they explicitly check text in different languages and of different sizes (err, the cross product of language x size). The results of the benchmarks are here:
<details>
<summary>Benchmark results</summary>
<pre>
test str::char_count::emoji_huge::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 20,216 ns/iter (+/- 3,673) = 17931 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_huge::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 108,851 ns/iter (+/- 12,777) = 3330 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_huge::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 329,502 ns/iter (+/- 4,163) = 1100 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_huge::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 223,333 ns/iter (+/- 14,167) = 1623 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_large::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 293 ns/iter (+/- 6) = 19331 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_large::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 1,681 ns/iter (+/- 28) = 3369 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_large::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 5,166 ns/iter (+/- 85) = 1096 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_large::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 3,476 ns/iter (+/- 62) = 1629 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_medium::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 48 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 14750 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_medium::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 217 ns/iter (+/- 4) = 3262 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_medium::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 642 ns/iter (+/- 7) = 1102 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_medium::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 445 ns/iter (+/- 3) = 1591 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_small::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 18 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 3777 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_small::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 23 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 2956 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_small::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 66 ns/iter (+/- 2) = 1030 MB/s
test str::char_count::emoji_small::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 29 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 2344 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_huge::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 25,909 ns/iter (+/- 39,260) = 13299 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_huge::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 102,887 ns/iter (+/- 3,257) = 3349 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_huge::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 166,370 ns/iter (+/- 12,439) = 2071 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_huge::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 166,332 ns/iter (+/- 4,262) = 2071 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_large::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 281 ns/iter (+/- 6) = 19160 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_large::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 1,598 ns/iter (+/- 19) = 3369 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_large::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 2,598 ns/iter (+/- 167) = 2072 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_large::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 2,578 ns/iter (+/- 55) = 2088 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_medium::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 44 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 15295 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_medium::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 201 ns/iter (+/- 51) = 3348 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_medium::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 322 ns/iter (+/- 40) = 2090 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_medium::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 319 ns/iter (+/- 5) = 2109 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_small::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 15 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 2333 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_small::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 14 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 2500 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_small::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 30 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 1166 MB/s
test str::char_count::en_small::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 30 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 1166 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_huge::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 16,439 ns/iter (+/- 3,105) = 19777 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_huge::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 89,480 ns/iter (+/- 2,555) = 3633 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_huge::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 217,703 ns/iter (+/- 22,185) = 1493 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_huge::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 157,330 ns/iter (+/- 19,188) = 2066 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_large::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 243 ns/iter (+/- 6) = 20905 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_large::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 1,384 ns/iter (+/- 51) = 3670 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_large::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 3,381 ns/iter (+/- 543) = 1502 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_large::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 2,423 ns/iter (+/- 429) = 2096 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_medium::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 42 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 15119 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_medium::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 180 ns/iter (+/- 4) = 3527 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_medium::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 402 ns/iter (+/- 45) = 1579 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_medium::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 280 ns/iter (+/- 29) = 2267 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_small::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 12 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 2666 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_small::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 12 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 2666 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_small::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 19 ns/iter (+/- 0) = 1684 MB/s
test str::char_count::ru_small::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 14 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 2285 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_huge::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 15,053 ns/iter (+/- 2,640) = 20067 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_huge::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 82,622 ns/iter (+/- 3,602) = 3656 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_huge::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 230,456 ns/iter (+/- 7,246) = 1310 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_huge::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 220,595 ns/iter (+/- 11,624) = 1369 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_large::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 227 ns/iter (+/- 65) = 20792 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_large::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 1,136 ns/iter (+/- 144) = 4154 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_large::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 3,147 ns/iter (+/- 253) = 1499 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_large::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 2,993 ns/iter (+/- 400) = 1577 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_medium::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 36 ns/iter (+/- 5) = 16388 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_medium::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 142 ns/iter (+/- 18) = 4154 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_medium::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 379 ns/iter (+/- 37) = 1556 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_medium::case03_manual_char_len ... bench: 364 ns/iter (+/- 51) = 1620 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_small::case00_cur_libcore ... bench: 11 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 3000 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_small::case01_old_libcore ... bench: 11 ns/iter (+/- 1) = 3000 MB/s
test str::char_count::zh_small::case02_iter_increment ... bench: 20 ns/iter (+/- 3) = 1650 MB/s
</pre>
</details>
I also added fairly thorough tests for different sizes and alignments. This completes on my machine in 0.02s, which is surprising given how thorough they are, but it seems to detect bugs in the implementation. (I haven't run the tests on a 32 bit machine yet since before I reworked the code a little though, so... hopefully I'm not about to embarrass myself).
This uses similar SWAR-style techniques to the `is_ascii` impl I contributed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74066, so I'm going to request review from the same person who reviewed that one. That said am not particularly picky, and might not have the correct syntax for requesting a review from someone (so it goes).
r? `@nagisa`
Document valid values of the char type
As discussed at #93392, the current documentation on what constitutes a valid char isn't very detailed and is partly on the MAX constant rather than the type itself.
This PR expands on that information, stating the actual numerical range, giving examples of what won't work, and also mentions how a `char` might be a valid USV but still not be a defined character (terminology checked against [Unicode 14.0, table 2-3](https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/ch02.pdf#M9.61673.TableTitle.Table.22.Types.of.Code.Points)).
Implement `RawWaker` and `Waker` getters for underlying pointers
implement #87021
New APIs:
- `RawWaker::data(&self) -> *const ()`
- `RawWaker::vtable(&self) -> &'static RawWakerVTable`
- ~`Waker::as_raw_waker(&self) -> &RawWaker`~ `Waker::as_raw(&self) -> &RawWaker`
This third one is an auxiliary function to make the two APIs above more useful. Since we can only get `&Waker` in `Future::poll`, without this, we need to `transmute` it into `&RawWaker` (relying on `repr(transparent)`) in order to access its data/vtable pointers.
~Not sure if it should be named `as_raw` or `as_raw_waker`. Seems we always use `as_<something-raw>` instead of just `as_raw`. But `as_raw_waker` seems not quite consistent with `Waker::from_raw`.~ As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91828#discussion_r770729837, use `as_raw`.
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
Remove deprecated and unstable slice_partition_at_index functions
They have been deprecated since commit 01ac5a97c9
which was part of the 1.49.0 release, so from the point of nightly,
11 releases ago.
review the total_cmp documentation
The documentation has been restructured to split out a brief summary
paragraph out from the following elaborating paragraphs.
I also attempted my hand at wording improvements and adding articles
where I felt them missing, but being non-native english speaker these
may need more thorough review.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72599
Clarify documentation on char::MAX
As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91836#issuecomment-994106874, the documentation on `char::MAX` is not quite correct – USVs are not "only ones within a certain range", they are code points _outside_ a certain range. I have corrected this and given the actual numbers as there is no reason to hide them.
Make `char::DecodeUtf16::size_hist` more precise
New implementation takes into account contents of `self.buf` and rounds lower bound up instead of down.
Fixes#88762
Revival of #88763
Create `core::fmt::ArgumentV1` with generics instead of fn pointer
Split from (and prerequisite of) #90488, as this seems to have perf implication.
`@rustbot` label: +T-libs
The documentation has been restructured to split out a brief summary
paragraph out from the following elaborating paragraphs.
I also attempted my hand at wording improvements and adding articles
where I felt them missing, but being non-native english speaker these
may need more thorough review.
