add ptr::from_{ref,mut}
We have methods to avoid almost all `as` casts around raw pointer handling, except for the initial cast from reference to raw pointer. These new methods close that gap.
(I also moved `null_mut` next to `null` to keep the file consistently organized.)
r? libs-api
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106116
According to Godbolt¹, on x86_64 using binary and produces slightly
better code than using subtraction. Readability of both is pretty
much equivalent so might just as well use the shorter option.
¹ https://rust.godbolt.org/z/9jM3ejbMx
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #105584 (add assert messages if chunks/windows are length 0)
- #105602 (interpret: add read_machine_[ui]size convenience methods)
- #105824 (str.lines() docstring: clarify that line endings are not returned)
- #105980 (Refer to "Waker" rather than "RawWaker" in `drop` comment)
- #105986 (Fix typo in reading_half_a_pointer.rs)
- #105995 (Add regression test for #96530)
- #106008 (Sort lint_groups in no_lint_suggestion)
- #106014 (Add comment explaining what the scrape-examples-toggle.goml GUI test is about)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Clarify that raw retags are not permitted in Mir
Not sure when this changed, but documentation and the validator needed to be updated. This also removes raw retags from custom mir.
cc rust-lang/miri#2735
r? `@RalfJung`
Refer to "Waker" rather than "RawWaker" in `drop` comment
In my view this is technically more correct as `Waker` actually implements `Drop` (which calls the `drop` method) whereas `RawWaker` does not.
str.lines() docstring: clarify that line endings are not returned
Previously, the str.lines() docstring stated that lines are split at line endings, but not whether those were returned or not. This new version of the docstring states this explicitly, avoiding the need of getting to doctests to get an answer to this FAQ.
Rename `assert_uninit_valid` intrinsic
It's not about "uninit" anymore but about "filling with 0x01 bytes" so the name should at least try to reflect that.
This is actually not fully correct though, as it does still panic for all uninit with `-Zstrict-init-checks`. I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with that not causing confusion. I guess we could just remove the flag? I don't think having it makes a lot of sense anymore with the direction that we have chose to go. It could be relevant again if #100423 lands so removing it may be a bit over eager.
r? `@RalfJung`
Implement `From<bool>` for f32, f64
As is required for trait implementations, these are insta-stable. Given there is a release tomorrow and this needs FCP, I set 1.65 as the stable version.
`@rustbot` label +A-floating-point +C-feature-request +needs-fcp +relnotes +S-waiting-on-review +T-libs-api -T-libs
Implement va_list and va_arg for s390x FFI
Following the s390x ELF ABI and based on the clang implementation, provide appropriate definitions of va_list in library/core/src/ffi/mod.rs and va_arg handling in compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/va_arg.rs.
Fixes the following test cases on s390x:
src/test/run-make-fulldeps/c-link-to-rust-va-list-fn src/test/ui/abi/variadic-ffi.rs
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84628.
Following the s390x ELF ABI and based on the clang implementation,
provide appropriate definitions of va_list in library/core/src/ffi/mod.rs
and va_arg handling in compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/va_arg.rs.
Fixes the following test cases on s390x:
src/test/run-make-fulldeps/c-link-to-rust-va-list-fn
src/test/ui/abi/variadic-ffi.rs
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84628.
Revert "Replace usage of `ResumeTy` in async lowering with `Context`"
Reverts rust-lang/rust#105250
Fixes: #105501
Following instructions from [forge](https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/reviews.html#reverts).
This change introduced a breaking change that is not actionable nor relevant, and is blocking updates to our toolchain. Along with other comments on the CL marking issues that are fixed by reverts, reverting is best until these issues can be resolved
cc. `@Swatinem`
Support call and drop terminators in custom mir
The only caveat with this change is that cleanup blocks are not supported. I would like to add them, but it's not quite clear to me what the best way to do that is, so I'll have to think about it some more.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Previously, the str.lines() docstring stated that lines are split at line
endings, but not whether those were returned or not. This new version of the
docstring states this explicitly, avoiding the need of getting to doctests to
get an answer to this FAQ.
doc: Fix a few small issues
Hey, while reading through the (awesome) stdlib docs, I found a few minor typos.
* A few typos around generic types (`;` vs `,`)
* Use inline code formatting for code fragments
* One instance of wrong wording
Custom MIR: Many more improvements
Commits are each atomic changes, best reviewed one at a time, with the exception that the last commit includes all the documentation.
### First commit
Unsafetyck was not correctly disabled before for `dialect = "built"` custom MIR. This is fixed and a regression test is added.
### Second commit
Implements `Discriminant`, `SetDiscriminant`, and `SwitchInt`.
### Third commit
Implements indexing, field, and variant projections.
### Fourth commit
Documents the previous commits and everything else.
There is some amount of weirdness here due to having to beat Rust syntax into cooperating with MIR concepts, but it hopefully should not be too much. All of it is documented.
r? `@oli-obk`
Remove wrong note for short circuiting operators
They *are* representable by traits, even if the short-circuiting behaviour requires a different approach than the non-short-circuiting operators. For an example proposal, see the postponed [RFC 2722](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2722). As it is not accurate, remove most of the note.
They *are* representable by traits, even if the short-circuiting
behaviour requires a different approach than the non-short-circuiting
operators. For an example proposal, see the postponed RFC 2722.
As it is not accurate, reword the note.
