Improve wording of "cannot multiply" type error
For example, if you had this code:
fn foo(x: i32, y: f32) -> f32 {
x * y
}
You would get this error:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
However, that's not usually how people describe multiplication. People
usually describe multiplication like how the division error words it:
error[E0277]: cannot divide `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x / y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 / f32`
|
= help: the trait `Div<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
So that's what this change does. It changes this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
To this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
Add Pin::static_ref, static_mut.
This adds `Pin::static_ref` and `Pin::static_mut`, which convert a static reference to a pinned static reference.
Static references are effectively already pinned, as what they refer to has to live forever and can never be moved.
---
Context: I want to update the `sys` and `sys_common` mutexes/rwlocks/condvars to use `Pin<&self>` in their functions, instead of only warning in the unsafety comments that they may not be moved. That should make them a little bit less dangerous to use. Putting such an object in a `static` (e.g. through `sys_common::StaticMutex`) fulfills the requirements about never moving it, but right now there's no safe way to get a `Pin<&T>` to a `static`. This solves that.
Wrapping intrinsics doc links update.
The links in the wrapping intrinsics docs now refer to the `wrapping_*` functions, not the `checked_*` functions.
const keyword: brief paragraph on 'const fn'
`const fn` were mentioned in the title, but called "deterministic functions" which is not their main property (though at least currently it is a consequence of being const-evaluable). This adds a brief paragraph discussing them, also in the hopes of clarifying that they do *not* have any effect on run-time uses.
Assert that pthread mutex initialization succeeded
If pthread mutex initialization fails, the failure will go unnoticed unless
debug assertions are enabled. Any subsequent use of mutex will also silently
fail, since return values from lock & unlock operations are similarly checked
only through debug assertions.
In some implementations the mutex initialization requires a memory
allocation and so it does fail in practice.
Assert that initialization succeeds to ensure that mutex guarantees
mutual exclusion.
Fixes#34966.
If pthread mutex initialization fails, the failure will go unnoticed unless
debug assertions are enabled. Any subsequent use of mutex will also silently
fail, since return values from lock & unlock operations are similarly checked
only through debug assertions.
In some implementations the mutex initialization requires a memory
allocation and so it does fail in practice.
Check that initialization succeeds to ensure that mutex guarantees
mutual exclusion.
Move `slice::check_range` to `RangeBounds`
Since this method doesn't take a slice anymore (#76662), it makes more sense to define it on `RangeBounds`.
Questions:
- Should the new method be `assert_len` or `assert_length`?
For example, if you had this code:
fn foo(x: i32, y: f32) -> f32 {
x * y
}
You would get this error:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
However, that's not usually how people describe multiplication. People
usually describe multiplication like how the division error words it:
error[E0277]: cannot divide `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x / y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 / f32`
|
= help: the trait `Div<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
So that's what this change does. It changes this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
To this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
Add std:🧵:available_concurrency
This PR adds a counterpart to [C++'s `std:🧵:hardware_concurrency`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/thread/hardware_concurrency) to Rust, tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74479.
cc/ `@rust-lang/libs`
## Motivation
Being able to know how many hardware threads a platform supports is a core part of building multi-threaded code. In C++ 11 this has become available through the [`std:🧵:hardware_concurrency`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/thread/hardware_concurrency) API. Currently in Rust most of the ecosystem depends on the [`num_cpus` crate](https://docs.rs/num_cpus/1.13.0/num_cpus/) ([no.35 in top 500 crates](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wwahRMHG3buvnfHjmPQFU4Kyfq15oTwbfsuZpwHUKc4/edit#gid=1253069234)) to provide this functionality. This PR proposes an API to provide access to the number of hardware threads available on a given platform.
__edit (2020-07-24):__ The purpose of this PR is to provide a hint for how many threads to spawn to saturate the processor. There's value in introducing APIs for NUMA and Windows processor groups, but those are intentionally out of scope for this PR. See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74480#issuecomment-662116186.
## Naming
Discussing the naming of the API on Zulip surfaced two options:
- `std:🧵:hardware_concurrency`
- `std:🧵:hardware_threads`
Both options seemed acceptable, but overall people seem to gravitate the most towards `hardware_threads`. Additionally `@jonas-schievink` pointed out that the "hardware threads" terminology is well-established and is used in among other the [RISC-V specification](https://riscv.org/specifications/isa-spec-pdf/) (page 20):
> A component is termed a core if it contains an independent instruction fetch unit. A RISC-V-compatible core might support multiple RISC-V-compatible __hardware threads__, or harts, through multithreading.
It's also worth noting that [the original paper introducing C++'s `std::thread` submodule](http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2320.html) unfortunately doesn't feature any discussion on the naming of `hardware_concurrency`, so we can't use that to help inform our decision here.
## Return type
An important consideration `@joshtriplett` brought up is that we don't want to default to `1` for platforms where the number of available threads cannot be retrieved. Instead we want to inform the users of the fact that we don't know and allow them to handle that case. Which is why this PR uses `Option<NonZeroUsize>` as its return type, where `None` is returned on platforms where we don't know the number of hardware threads available.
The reasoning for `NonZeroUsize` vs `usize` is that if the number of threads for a platform are known, they'll always be at least 1. As evidenced by the example the `NonZero*` family of APIs may currently not be the most ergonomic to use, but improving the ergonomics of them is something that I think we can address separately.
## Implementation
`@Mark-Simulacrum` pointed out that most of the code we wanted to expose here was already available under `libtest`. So this PR mostly moves the internal code of libtest into a public API.
