Deprecate the core::raw / std::raw module
It only contains the `TraitObject` struct which exposes components of wide pointer. Pointer metadata APIs are designed to replace this: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81513
Add some #[inline(always)] to arithmetic methods of integers
I tried to add it only to methods which return results of intrinsics and don't have any branching.
Branching could made performance of debug builds (`-Copt-level=0`) worse.
Main goal of changes is allowing wider optimizations in `-Copt-level=1`.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75598
r? `@nagisa`
No compiler changes as part of this -- just new unstable traits and impls thereof.
The goal here is to add the things that aren't going to break anything, to keep the feature implementation simpler in the next PR.
add lint deref_nullptr detecting when a null ptr is dereferenced
fixes#83856
changelog: add lint that detect code like
```rust
unsafe {
&*core::ptr::null::<i32>()
};
unsafe {
addr_of!(std::ptr::null::<i32>())
};
let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null()};
let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null_mut()};
unsafe {*(0 as *const i32)};
unsafe {*(core::ptr::null() as *const i32)};
```
```
warning: Dereferencing a null pointer causes undefined behavior
--> src\main.rs:5:26
|
5 | let x: i32 = unsafe {*core::ptr::null()};
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| a null pointer is dereferenced
| this code causes undefined behavior when executed
|
= note: `#[warn(deref_nullptr)]` on by default
```
Limitation:
It does not detect code like
```rust
const ZERO: usize = 0;
unsafe {*(ZERO as *const i32)};
```
or code where `0` is not directly a literal
I tried to add it only to methods which return results of intrinsics and don't have any branching.
Branching could made performance of debug builds (`-Copt-level=0`) worse.
Main goal of changes is allowing wider optimizations in `-Copt-level=1`.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75598
Add note about reverting a workaround in the future
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.
Stabilize `peekable_peek_mut`
Resolves#78302. Also adds some documentation on `std::iter::Iterator::peekable()` regarding the new method.
The feature was added in #77491 in Nov' 20, which is recently, but the feature seems reasonably small. Never did a stabilization-pr, excuse my ignorance if there is a protocol I'm not aware of.
Improve links in inline code in `core::pin`.
## Context
So I recently opened #80720. That PR uses HTML-based `<code>foo</code>` syntax in place of `` `foo` `` for some inline code. It looks like usage of `<code>` tags in doc comments is without precedent in the standard library, but the HTML-based syntax has an important advantage:
You can write something like
```
<code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>
```
which becomes: <code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>, whereas with ordinary backtick syntax, you cannot create links for a substring of an inline code block.
## Problem
I recalled (from my own experience) that a way to partially work around this limitation is to do something like
```
[`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>`
```
which looks like this: [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` _(admitted, it looks even worse on GitHub than in `rustdoc`’s CSS)_.
[Box]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[`Box`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[Option]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
[`Option`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
[Pin]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/pin/struct.Pin.html "Pin"
[&mut]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.reference.html "mutable reference"
So I searched the standard library and found that e.g. the [std::pin](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/pin/index.html) module documentation uses this hack/workaround quite a bit, with types like <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> or <code>[Pin]<[&mut] T>></code>. Although the way they look like in this sentence is what I would like them to look like, not what they currently look.
### Status Quo
Here’s a screenshot of what it currently looks like:
With a few HTML-style code blocks, we can fix all the spacing issues in the above screenshot that are due usage of this hack/workaround of putting multiple code blocks right next to each other being used.
### after d3915c555ee016b11ce288e107e46dbab9f78c4f:
There’s still a problem of inconsistency. Especially in a sentence such as
> A [`Pin<P>`][Pin] where `P: Deref` should be considered as a "`P`-style pointer" to _[...]_
looks weird with the variable `P` having different colors (and `Deref` has a different color from before where it was a link, too). Or compare the difference of <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> vs [`Box<T>`][Box] where one time the variable is part of the link and the other time it isn’t.
_Note: Color differences show even **more strongly** when the ayu theme is used, while they are a bit less prominent in the light theme than they are in the dark theme, which is the one used for these screenshots._
This is why I’ve added the next commit
### after ceaeb249a3813a78bd81fa3890e27e8843a58262
pulling all the type parameters out of their links, and also the last commit with clearly visible changes
### after 87ac118ba3d0c8268e043fadbd63b51e06904795
where more links are added, removing e.g. the inconsistency with `Deref`’s color in e.g. `P: Deref` that I already mentioned above.
## Discussion
I am aware that this PR may very well be overkill. If for now only the first commit (plus the fix for the `Drop` link in e65385fbfa72995b27ec64aa54f330cf503dfc03, the link titles 684edf7a70d2e90466ae74e7a321670259bf3fd9 as far as they apply, and a few of the line-break changes) are wanted, I can reduce this PR to just those changes. I personally find the rendered result with all these changes very nice though. On the other hand, all these `<code>` tags are not very nice in the source code, I’ll admit.
Perhaps alternative solutions could be preferred, such as `rustdoc` support for merging subsequent inline code blocks so that all the cases that currently use workarounds rendered as [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` automatically become <code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code> without any need for further changes. Even in this case, having a properly formatted, better looking example in the standard library docs could help motivate such a change to `rustdoc` by prodiving an example of the expected results and also the already existing alternative (i.e. using `<code>`). On the other hand, `` [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` `` isn’t particularly nice-looking source code either. I’m not even sure if I wouldn’t actually find the version `<code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>` cleaner to read.
`@rustbot` modify labels: T-doc, T-rustdoc
Add more info for common trait resolution and async/await errors
* Suggest `Pin::new`/`Box::new`/`Arc::new`/`Box::pin` in more cases
* Point at `impl` and type defs introducing requirements on E0277
