Update docs for SystemTime Windows implementation
Windows now uses `GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime` (since #69858) on versions of Windows that support it.
Unconfuse Unpin docs a bit
* Don't say that Unpin is used to prevent moves, because it is used
to *allow* moves
* Be more precise about kindedness of things, it is
`Pin<Pointer<Data>>`, rather than just `Pin<Pointer>`.
Call into fastfail on abort in libpanic_abort on Windows x86(_64)
This partially resolves#73215 though this is only for x86 targets. This code is directly lifted from [libstd](13290e83a6/library/std/src/sys/windows/mod.rs (L315)). `__fastfail` is the preferred way to abort a process on Windows as it will hook into debugger toolchains.
Other platforms expose a `_rust_abort` symbol which wraps `std::sys::abort_internal`. This would also work on Windows, but is a slightly largely change as we'd need to make sure that the symbol is properly exposed to the linker. I'm inlining the call to the `__fastfail`, but the indirection through `rust_abort` might be a cleaner approach.
A different instruction must be used on ARM architectures. I'd like to verify this works first before tackling ARM.
I would like to propose these two simple methods for stabilization:
- Knowing that a range is exhaused isn't otherwise trivial
- Clippy would like to suggest them, but had to do extra work to disable that path <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3807> because they're unstable
- These work on `PartialOrd`, consistently with now-stable `contains`, and are thus more general than iterator-based approaches that need `Step`
- They've been unchanged for some time, and have picked up uses in the compiler
- Stabilizing them doesn't block any future iterator-based is_empty plans, as the inherent ones are preferred in name resolution
Minor changes to Ipv4Addr
Minor changes to Ipv4Addr
* Impl IntoInner rather than AsInner for Ipv4Addr
* Add some comments
* Add test to show endiannes of Ipv4Addr display
* Don't say that Unpin is used to prevent moves, because it is used
to *allow* moves
* Be more precise about kindedness of things, it is
`Pin<Pointer<Data>>`, rather than just `Pin<Pointer>`.
Report an ambiguity if both modules and primitives are in scope for intra-doc links
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75381
- Add a new `prim@` disambiguator, since both modules and primitives are in the same namespace
- Refactor `report_ambiguity` into a closure
Additionally, I noticed that rustdoc would previously allow `[struct@char]` if `char` resolved to a primitive (not if it had a DefId). I fixed that and added a test case.
I also need to update libstd to use `prim@char` instead of `type@char`. If possible I would also like to refactor `ambiguity_error` to use `Disambiguator` instead of its own hand-rolled match - that ran into issues with `prim@` (I updated one and not the other) and it would be better for them to be in sync.
Use allow(unused_imports) instead of cfg(doc) for imports used only for intra-doc links
This prevents links from breaking when items are re-exported in a
different crate and the original isn't being documented.
Spotted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75832#discussion_r475275837 (thanks ollie!)
r? @ollie27
Fix typo in documentation of i32 wrapping_abs()
Hi!
I was reading through the std library docs and noticed that this section flowed a bit oddly; comparing it against https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_div and https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_neg , I noticed that those two pieces of documentation used a semicolon here.
This is my first time submitting a PR to this repo. Am I doing this right? Are tiny typo-fix PRs like this worth submitting, or are they not a good use of time?
Thank you!
Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
Part of #75080.
---
* Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
* Fix typo in module docs
* Link to `std::io::stderr` instead of `std::io::Stderr` to match the
link text
* Link to `std::io::stdout`
---
@rustbot modify labels: A-intra-doc-links T-doc T-rustdoc
Document that slice refers to any pointer type to a sequence
I was recently confused about the way slices are represented in memory. The necessary information was not available in the std-docs directly, but was a mix of different material from the reference and book.
This PR should clear up the definition of slices a bit more in the documentation. Especially the fact that the term slice refers to the pointer/reference type, e.g. `&[T]`, and not `[T]`.
It also documents that slice pointers are twice the size of pointers to `Sized` types, as this concept may be unfamiliar to users coming from other languages that do not have the concept of "fat pointers" (especially C/C++).
I've documented why this was important to me and my findings in [this blog post](https://codecrash.me/understanding-rust-slices).
r? @lcnr
stabilize ptr_offset_from
This stabilizes ptr::offset_from, and closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079. It also removes the deprecated `wrapping_offset_from`. This function was deprecated 19 days ago and was never stable; given an FCP of 10 days and some waiting time until FCP starts, that leaves at least a month between deprecation and removal which I think is fine for a nightly-only API.
Regarding the open questions in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079:
* Should offset_from abort instead of panic on ZSTs? -- As far as I know, there is no precedent for such aborts. We could, however, declare this UB. Given that the size is always known statically and the check thus rather cheap, UB seems excessive.
* Should there be more methods like this with different restrictions (to allow nuw/nsw, perhaps) or that return usize (like how isize-taking offset is more conveniently done with usize-taking add these days)? -- No reason to block stabilization on that, we can always add such methods later.
Also nominating the lang team because this exposes an intrinsic.
The stabilized method is best described [by its doc-comment](56d4b2d69a/src/libcore/ptr/const_ptr.rs (L227)). The documentation forgot to mention the requirement that both pointers must "have the same provenance", aka "be derived from pointers to the same allocation", which I am adding in this PR. This is a precondition that [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a3b9d0a07a01321f5202cd99e9613480) and that, should LLVM ever obtain a `psub` operation to subtract pointers, will likely be required for that operation (following the semantics in [this paper](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf)).
