The addition of `core::iter::zip` (#82917) set a precedent for adding
plain functions for iterator adaptors. Adding `chain` makes it a little
easier to `chain` two iterators.
```
for (x, y) in chain(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().chain(ys) {}
```
Change f32::midpoint to upcast to f64
This has been verified by kani as a correct optimization
see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110840#issuecomment-1942587398
The new implementation is branchless and only differs in which NaN values are produced (if any are produced at all), which is fine to change. Aside from NaN handling, this implementation produces bitwise identical results to the original implementation.
Question: do we need a codegen test for this? I didn't add one, since the original PR #92048 didn't have any codegen tests.
This has been verified by kani as a correct optimization
see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110840#issuecomment-1942587398
The new implementation is branchless, and only differs in which NaN
values are produced (if any are produced at all). Which is fine to change.
Aside from NaN handling, this implementation produces bitwise identical
results to the original implementation.
The new implementation is gated on targets that have a fast 64-bit
floating point implementation in hardware, and on WASM.
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
Make `io::BorrowedCursor::advance` safe
This also keeps the old `advance` method under `advance_unchecked` name.
This makes pattern like `std::io::default_read_buf` safe to write.
Rename MaybeUninit::write_slice
A step to push #79995 forward.
https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/122 also suggested to make them inherent methods, but they can't be — they'd conflict with slice's regular methods.
core: add Duration constructors
Add more `Duration` constructors.
Tracking issue: #120301.
These match similar convenience constructors available on both `chrono::Duration` and `time::Duration`.
What's the best ordering for these with respect to the existing constructors?
