Remove unnecessary tmp variable in default_read_exact
This `tmp` variable has existed since the original implementation (added in ff81920f03), but it's not necessary (maybe non-lexical lifetimes helped?).
It's common to read std source code to understand how things actually work, and this tripped me up on my first read.
Implement `slice::split_once` and `slice::rsplit_once`
Feature gate is `slice_split_once` and tracking issue is #112811. These are equivalents to the existing `str::split_once` and `str::rsplit_once` methods.
Add explicit-endian String::from_utf16 variants
This adds the following APIs under `feature(str_from_utf16_endian)`:
```rust
impl String {
pub fn from_utf16le(v: &[u8]) -> Result<String, FromUtf16Error>;
pub fn from_utf16le_lossy(v: &[u8]) -> String;
pub fn from_utf16be(v: &[u8]) -> Result<String, FromUtf16Error>;
pub fn from_utf16be_lossy(v: &[u8]) -> String;
}
```
These are versions of `String::from_utf16` that explicitly take [UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE](https://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#gen7). Notably, we can do better than just the obvious `decode_utf16(v.array_chunks::<2>().copied().map(u16::from_le_bytes)).collect()` in that:
- We handle the case where the byte slice is not an even number of bytes, and
- In the case that the UTF-16 is native endian and the slice is aligned, we can forward to `String::from_utf16`.
If the Unicode Consortium actively defines how to handle character replacement when decoding a UTF-16 bytestream with a trailing odd byte, I was unable to find reference. However, the behavior implemented here is fairly self-evidently correct: replace the single errant byte with the replacement character.
Fix generic bound of `str::SplitInclusive`'s `DoubleEndedIterator` impl
`str::SplitInclusive`'s `DoubleEndedIterator` implementation currently uses a `ReverseSearcher` bound for the corresponding searcher. A `DoubleEndedSearcher` bound should have been used instead.
`DoubleEndedIterator` requires that repeated `next_back` calls produce the same items as repeated `next` calls, in opposite order. `ReverseSearcher` lets you search starting from the back of a string, but it makes no guarantees about how its matches correspond to the matches found by a forward search. `DoubleEndedSearcher` is a subtrait of `ReverseSearcher` and does require that the same matches are found in both directions.
This bug fix is a breaking change. Calling `next_back` on `"a+++b".split_inclusive("++")` is currently accepted with repeated calls producing `"b"` and `"a+++"`, while forward iteration yields `"a++"` and `"+b"`. Also see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100756#issuecomment-1221307166 for more details.
I believe that this is the only iterator that uses this bound incorrectly — other related iterators such as `str::Split` do have a `DoubleEndedSearcher` bound for their `DoubleEndedIterator` implementation. And `slice::SplitInclusive` doesn't face this problem at all because it doesn't use patterns, only a predicate.
cc `@SkiFire13`
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #116277 (dont call mir.post_mono_checks in codegen)
- #116400 (Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing)
- #116458 (Properly export function defined in test which uses global_asm!())
- #116500 (Add tvOS to target_os for register_dtor)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Reuse existing `Some`s in `Option::(x)or`
LLVM still has trouble re-using discriminants sometimes when rebuilding a two-variant enum, so when we have the correct variant already built, just use it.
That's shorter in the Rust code, as well as simpler in MIR and the optimized LLVM, so might as well: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/KhdE8eToW>
Thanks to `@veber-alex` for pointing out this opportunity in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101210#issuecomment-1732470941
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #115454 (Clarify example in docs of str::char_slice)
- #115522 (Clarify ManuallyDrop bit validity)
- #115588 (Fix a comment in std::iter::successors)
- #116198 (Add more diagnostic items for clippy)
- #116329 (update some comments around swap())
- #116475 (rustdoc-search: fix bug with multi-item impl trait)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix a comment in std::iter::successors
The `unfold` function have since #58062 been renamed to `from_fn`.
(I'm not sure if this whole comment is still useful—it's not like there are many iterators that *can't* be based on `from_fn`. Anyway, in its current form this comment is not correct, and it sent me into a half-hour research of what happened to `unfold` function, so I want to do *something* with it 🙃 deleting these three lines is a perfectly fine alternative, in my opinion.)
Clarify example in docs of str::char_slice
Just a one word improvement.
“Last” can be misread as meaning the last (third) instead of the previous (first).
`waitqueue` clarifications for SGX platform
The documentation of `waitqueue` functions on the `x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx` platform is incorrect at some places and on others missing. This PR improves upon this.
cc: `@jethrogb`
LLVM still has trouble re-using discriminants sometimes when rebuilding a two-variant enum, so when we have the correct variant already built, just use it.
That's simpler in LLVM *and* in MIR, so might as well: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/KhdE8eToW>
docs: Correct terminology in std::cmp
This PR is the result of some discussions on URLO:
* [Traits in `std::cmp` and mathematical terminology](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/traits-in-std-cmp-and-mathematical-terminology/69887)
* [Are poker hands `Ord` or `PartialOrd`?](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/are-poker-hands-ord-or-partialord/82644)
Arguably, the documentation currently isn't very precise regarding mathematical terminology. This can lead to misunderstandings of what `PartialEq`, `Eq`, `PartialOrd`, and `Ord` actually do.
While I believe this PR doesn't give any new API guarantees, it expliclitly mentions that `PartialEq::eq(a, b)` may return `true` for two distinct values `a` and `b` (i.e. where `a` and `b` are not equal in the mathematical sense). This leads to the consequence that `Ord` may describe a weak ordering instead of a total ordering.
In either case, I believe this PR should be thoroughly reviewed, ideally by someone with mathematical background to make sure the terminology is correct now, and also to ensure that no unwanted new API guarantees are made.
In particular, the following problems are addressed:
* Some clarifications regarding used (mathematical) terminology:
* Avoid using the terms "total equality" and "partial equality" in favor of "equivalence relation" and "partial equivalence relation", which are well-defined and unambiguous.
* Clarify that `Ordering` is an ordering between two values (and not an order in the mathematical sense).
* Avoid saying that `PartialEq` and `Eq` are "equality comparisons" because the terminology "equality comparison" could be misleading: it's possible to implement `PartialEq` and `Eq` for other (partial) equivalence relations, in particular for relations where `a == b` for some `a` and `b` even when `a` and `b` are not the same value.
* Added a section "Strict and non-strict partial orders" to document that the `<=` and `>=` operators do not correspond to non-strict partial orders.
* Corrected section "Corollaries" in documenation of `Ord` in regard to `<` only describing a strict total order in cases where `==` conforms to mathematical equality.
* ~~Added a section "Weak orders" to explain that `Ord` may also describe a weak order or total preorder, depending on how `PartialEq::eq` has been implemented.~~ (Removed, see [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103046#issuecomment-1279929676))
* Made documentation easier to understand:
* Explicitly state at the beginning of `PartialEq`'s documentation comment that implementing the trait will provide the `==` and `!=` operators.
* Added an easier to understand rule when to implement `Eq` in addition to `PartialEq`: "if it’s guaranteed that `PartialEq::eq(a, a)` always returns `true`."
* Explicitly mention in documentation of `Eq` that the properties "symmetric" and "transitive" are already required by `PartialEq`.
core library: Disable fpmath tests for i586 ...
This patch disables the floating-point epsilon test for i586 since x87 registers are too imprecise and can't produce the expected results.
Some clarifications regarding used (mathematical) terminology:
* Avoid using the terms "total equality" and "partial equality" in favor
of "equivalence relation" and "partial equivalence relation", which
are well-defined and unambiguous.
* Clarify that `Ordering` is an ordering between two values (and not an
order in the mathematical sense).
* Avoid saying that `PartialEq` and `Eq` are "equality comparisons"
because the terminology "equality comparison" could be misleading:
it's possible to implement `PartialEq` and `Eq` for other (partial)
equivalence relations, in particular for relations where `a == b` for
some `a` and `b` even when `a` and `b` are not the same value.
* Added a section "Strict and non-strict partial orders" to document
that the `<=` and `>=` operators do not correspond to non-strict
partial orders.
* Corrected section "Corollaries" in documenation of Ord in regard to
`<` only describing a strict total order in cases where `==` conforms
to mathematical equality.
Made documentation easier to understand:
* Explicitly state at the beginning of `PartialEq`'s documentation
comment that implementing the trait will provide the `==` and `!=`
operators.
* Added an easier to understand rule when to implement `Eq` in addition
to `PartialEq`: "if it’s guaranteed that `PartialEq::eq(a, a)` always
returns `true`."
* Explicitly mention in documentation of `Eq` that the properties
"symmetric" and "transitive" are already required by `PartialEq`.
Works around #115199 by temporarily disabling CFI for core and std CFI
violations to allow the user rebuild and use both core and std with CFI
enabled using the Cargo build-std feature.
Adapt `todo!` documentation to mention displaying custom values
Resolves#116130.
I copied from the [existing documentation](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.unimplemented.html) for `unimplemented!` more or less directly, down to the example trait used. I also took the liberty of fixing some formatting and typographical errors that I noticed.
Replace 'mutex' with 'lock' in RwLock documentation
When copying the documentation for `clear_poison` from Mutex, not every occurence of 'mutex' was replaced with 'lock'.
