```
test vec::bench_next_chunk ... bench: 696 ns/iter (+/- 22)
x86_64v1, pr
test vec::bench_next_chunk ... bench: 309 ns/iter (+/- 4)
znver2, default
test vec::bench_next_chunk ... bench: 17,272 ns/iter (+/- 117)
znver2, pr
test vec::bench_next_chunk ... bench: 211 ns/iter (+/- 3)
```
The znver2 default impl seems to be slow due to inlining decisions. It goes through `core::array::iter_next_chunk`
which has a deeper call tree.
Fix some broken link fragments.
An exception for link fragments starting with `-` was added in #49590. However, it is not clear what issues were encountered at the time. Perhaps those were fixed in the meantime.
This removes the exception, and fixes a couple of broken links that were skipped due to it.
rustdoc: Add support for `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]`
This PR adds support for `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]` attribute added in #92164. There is a desire to eventually use this attribute of `Read`, so making it show up in docs is a good thing.
I "stole" the styling from cfg notes, not sure what would be a proper styling. Currently it looks like this:
<details><summary>Code to reproduce</summary>
<p>
```rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#[rustc_must_implement_one_of(a, b)]
pub trait Trait {
fn req();
fn a(){ Self::b() }
fn b(){ Self::a() }
}
```
</p>
</details>
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
While we're here, we also emit allocator attributes on
__rust_alloc_zeroed. This should allow LLVM to perform more
optimizations for zeroed blocks, and probably fixes#90032. [This
comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24194#issuecomment-308791157)
mentions "weird UB-like behaviour with bitvec iterators in
rustc_data_structures" so we may need to back this change out if things
go wrong.
The new test cases require LLVM 15, so we copy them into LLVM
14-supporting versions, which we can delete when we drop LLVM 14.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #99618 (handle consts with param/infer in `const_eval_resolve` better)
- #99666 (Restore `Opaque` behavior to coherence check)
- #99692 (interpret, ptr_offset_from: refactor and test too-far-apart check)
- #99739 (Remove erroneous E0133 code from an error message.)
- #99748 (Use full type name instead of just saying `impl Trait` in "captures lifetime" error)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Use full type name instead of just saying `impl Trait` in "captures lifetime" error
I think this is very useful, especially when there's >1 `impl Trait`, and it just means passing around a bit more info that we already have access to.
Remove erroneous E0133 code from an error message.
This error message is about `derive` and `packed`, but E0133 is for
"Unsafe code was used outside of an unsafe function or block".
r? ``@estebank``
interpret, ptr_offset_from: refactor and test too-far-apart check
We didn't have any tests for the "too far apart" message, and indeed that check mostly relied on the in-bounds check and was otherwise probably not entirely correct... so I rewrote that check, and it is before the in-bounds check so we can test it separately.
Restore `Opaque` behavior to coherence check
Fixes#99663.
This broke in 84c3fcd2a0. I'm not exactly certain that adding this behavior back is necessarily correct, but at least the UI test I provided may stimulate some thoughts.
I think delaying a bug here is certainly not correct in the case of opaques -- if we want to change coherence behavior for opaques, then we should at least be emitting a new error.
r? ``@lcnr``
handle consts with param/infer in `const_eval_resolve` better
This PR addresses [this thread here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99449#discussion_r924141230). Was this the change you were looking for ``@lcnr?``
Interestingly, one test has begun to pass. Was that expected?
r? ``@lcnr``
Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift
This time most of the changes are bugfixes. No exciting new features to report. Thanks `@matthiaskrgr` for reporting a bunch of crashes!
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` label +A-codegen +A-cranelift +T-compiler
