Use `#[non_exhaustive]` where appropriate
Due to the std/alloc split, it is not possible to make `alloc::collections::TryReserveError::AllocError` non-exhaustive without having an unstable, doc-hidden method to construct (which negates the benefits from `#[non_exhaustive]`).
`@rustbot` label +C-cleanup +T-libs +S-waiting-on-review
Due to the std/alloc split, it is not possible to make
`alloc::collections::TryReserveError::AllocError` non-exhaustive without
having an unstable, doc-hidden method to construct (which negates the
benefits from `#[non_exhaustive]`.
Document associativity of iterator folds.
Document the associativity of `Iterator::fold` and
`DoubleEndedIterator::rfold` and add examples demonstrating this.
Add links to direct users to the fold of the opposite associativity.
Better errors for Debug and Display traits
Currently, if someone tries to pass value that does not implement `Debug` or `Display` to a formatting macro, they get a very verbose and confusing error message. This PR changes the error messages for missing `Debug` and `Display` impls to be less overwhelming in this case, as suggested by #85844. I was a little less aggressive in changing the error message than that issue proposed. Still, this implementation would be enough to reduce the number of messages to be much more manageable.
After this PR, information on the cause of an error involving a `Debug` or `Display` implementation would suppressed if the requirement originated within a standard library macro. My reasoning was that errors originating from within a macro are confusing when they mention details that the programmer can't see, and this is particularly problematic for `Debug` and `Display`, which are most often used via macros. It is possible that either a broader or a narrower criterion would be better. I'm quite open to any feedback.
Fixes#85844.
Add comments around code where ordering is important due for panic-safety
Iterators contain arbitrary code which may panic. Unsafe code has to be
careful to do its state updates at the right point between calls that may panic.
As requested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86452#discussion_r655153948
r? `@RalfJung`
Iterators contain arbitrary code which may panic. Unsafe code has to be
careful to do its state updates at the right point between calls
that may panic.
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #85054 (Revert SGX inline asm syntax)
- #85182 (Move `available_concurrency` implementation to `sys`)
- #86037 (Add `io::Cursor::{remaining, remaining_slice, is_empty}`)
- #86114 (Reopen#79692 (Format symbols under shared frames))
- #86297 (Allow to pass arguments to rustdoc-gui tool)
- #86334 (Resolve type aliases to the type they point to in intra-doc links)
- #86367 (Fix comment about rustc_inherit_overflow_checks in abs().)
- #86381 (Add regression test for issue #39161)
- #86387 (Remove `#[allow(unused_lifetimes)]` which is now unnecessary)
- #86398 (Add regression test for issue #54685)
- #86493 (Say "this enum variant takes"/"this struct takes" instead of "this function takes")
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add MIR pass to lower call to `core::slice::len` into `Len` operand
During some larger experiment with range analysis I've found that code like `let l = slice.len()` produces different MIR then one found in bound checks. This optimization pass replaces terminators that are calls to `core::slice::len` with just a MIR operand and Goto terminator.
It uses some heuristics to remove the outer borrow that is made to call `core::slice::len`, but I assume it can be eliminated, just didn't find how.
Would like to express my gratitude to `@oli-obk` who helped me a lot on Zullip
fix panic-safety in specialized Zip::next_back
This was unsound since a panic in a.next_back() would result in the
length not being updated which would then lead to the same element
being revisited in the side-effect preserving code.
fixes#86443
Alter std::cell::Cell::get_mut documentation
I felt that there was some inconsistency between between Cell and RefCell with regards to their `get_mut` method documentation: `RefCell` flags this method as "unusual" in that it takes `&mut self`, while `Cell` does not. I attempted to flag this in `Cell`s documentation as well, and point to `RefCell`s method in the case where it is required.
Find relevant parts of docs and the new version below.
The current docs for `Cell::get_mut`:
> Returns a mutable reference to the underlying data.
This call borrows Cell mutably (at compile-time) which guarantees that we possess the only reference.
And `RefCell::get_mut`:
> Returns a mutable reference to the underlying data.
This call borrows `RefCell` mutably (at compile-time) so there is no need for dynamic checks.
However be cautious: this method expects self to be mutable, which is generally not the case when using a `RefCell`. Take a look at the `borrow_mut` method instead if self isn’t mutable.
Also, please be aware that this method is only for special circumstances and is usually not what you want. In case of doubt, use `borrow_mut` instead.
My attempt to make `Cell::get_mut` clearer:
> Returns a mutable reference to the underlying data.
This call borrows `Cell` mutably (at compile-time) which guaranteesthat we possess the only reference.
However be cautious: this method expects `self` to be mutable, which is generally not the case when using a `Cell`. If you require interior mutability by reference, consider using `RefCell` which provides run-time checked mutable borrows through its `borrow_mut` method.
This was unsound since a panic in a.next_back() would result in the
length not being updated which would then lead to the same element
being revisited in the side-effect preserving code.
Document the associativity of `Iterator::fold` and
`DoubleEndedIterator::rfold` and add examples demonstrating this.
Add links to direct users to the fold of the opposite associativity.
Make `sum()` and `product()` documentation hyperlinks refer to `Iterator` methods.
The previous linking seemed confusing: within "the sum() method on iterators", "sum()" was linked to `Sum::sum`, not `Iterator::sum`, even though the sentence is talking about the latter. I have rewritten the sentence to be, I believe, clearer, as well as changing the link destinations; applying the same change to the `Product` documentation as well as `Sum`.
I reviewed other traits in the same module and did not see similar issues, and previewed the results using `./x.py doc library/std`.
This method on the Iterator trait is doc(hidden), and about half of
implementations were doc(hidden). This adds the attribute to the
remaining implementations.
The previous linking seemed confusing: within "the sum() method on
iterators", "sum()" was linked to `Sum::sum`, not `Iterator::sum`, even
though the sentence is talking about the latter.
I have rewritten the sentence to be, I believe, clearer, as well as
changing the link destinations; applying the same change to the
`Product` documentation as well as `Sum`.
Mention the `Borrow` guarantee on the `Hash` implementations for Arrays and `Vec`
To remind people like me who forget about it and send PRs to make them different, and to (probably) get a test failure if the code is changed to no longer uphold it.
Updates `Clone` docs for `Copy` comparison.
Quite a few people (myself included) have come under the impression that the difference between `Copy` and `Clone` is that `Copy` is cheap and `Clone` is expensive, where the actual difference is that `Copy` constrains the type to bit-wise copying, and `Clone` allows for more expensive operations. The source of this misconception is in the `Clone` docs, where the following line is in the description:
> Differs from `Copy` in that `Copy` is implicit and extremely inexpensive, while `Clone` is always explicit and may or may not be expensive.
The `Clone` documentation page also comes up before the `Copy` page on google when searching for "the difference between `Clone` and `Copy`".
This PR updates the documentation to clarify that "extremely inexpensive" means an "inexpensive bit-wise copy" to hopefully prevent future rust users from falling into this misunderstanding.
Integrate binary search codes of binary_search_by and partition_point
For now partition_point has own binary search code piece.
It is because binary_search_by had called the comparer more times and the author (=me) wanted to avoid it.
However, now binary_search_by uses the comparer minimum times. (#74024)
So it's time to integrate them.
The appearance of the codes are a bit different but both use completely same logic.
Stabilize {std, core}::prelude::rust_*.
This stabilizes the `{core, std}::prelude::{rust_2015, rust_2018, rust_2021}` modules.
The usage of these modules as the prelude in those editions was already stabilized. This just stabilizes the modules themselves, making it possible for a user to explicitly refer to them.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85684
FCP on the RFC that included this finished here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3114#issuecomment-840577395
Add functions `Duration::try_from_secs_{f32, f64}`
These functions allow constructing a Duration from a floating point value that could be out of range without panicking.
Tracking issue: #83400
Revert #85176 addition of `clone_from` for `ManuallyDrop`
Forwarding `clone_from` to the inner value changes the observable behavior, as previously the inner value would *not* be dropped by the default implementation.
Frankly, this is a super-niche case, so #85176 is welcome to argue the behavior should be otherwise! But if we overrride it, IMO documenting the behavior would be good.
Example: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=c5d0856686fa850c1d7ee16891014efb
