Reimplement `carrying_add` and `borrowing_sub` for signed integers.
As per the discussion in #85532, this PR reimplements `carrying_add` and `borrowing_sub` for signed integers.
It also adds unit tests for both unsigned and signed integers, emphasing on the behaviours of the methods.
Make use of `[wrapping_]byte_{add,sub}`
These new methods trivially replace old `.cast().wrapping_offset().cast()` & similar code.
Note that [`arith_offset`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/intrinsics/fn.arith_offset.html) and `wrapping_offset` are the same thing.
r? ``@scottmcm``
_split off from #100746_
Expose `Utf8Lossy` as `Utf8Chunks`
This PR changes the feature for `Utf8Lossy` from `str_internals` to `utf8_lossy` and improves the API. This is done to eventually expose the API as stable.
Proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#54
Tracking Issue: #99543
Refactor iteration logic in the `Flatten` and `FlatMap` iterators
The `Flatten` and `FlatMap` iterators both delegate to `FlattenCompat`:
```rust
struct FlattenCompat<I, U> {
iter: Fuse<I>,
frontiter: Option<U>,
backiter: Option<U>,
}
```
Every individual iterator method that `FlattenCompat` implements needs to carefully manage this state, checking whether the `frontiter` and `backiter` are present, and storing the current iterator appropriately if iteration is aborted. This has led to methods such as `next`, `advance_by`, and `try_fold` all having similar code for managing the iterator's state.
I have extracted this common logic of iterating the inner iterators with the option to exit early into a `iter_try_fold` method:
```rust
impl<I, U> FlattenCompat<I, U>
where
I: Iterator<Item: IntoIterator<IntoIter = U>>,
{
fn iter_try_fold<Acc, Fold, R>(&mut self, acc: Acc, fold: Fold) -> R
where
Fold: FnMut(Acc, &mut U) -> R,
R: Try<Output = Acc>,
{ ... }
}
```
It passes each of the inner iterators to the given function as long as it keep succeeding. It takes care of managing `FlattenCompat`'s state, so that the actual `Iterator` methods don't need to. The resulting code that makes use of this abstraction is much more straightforward:
```rust
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<U::Item> {
#[inline]
fn next<U: Iterator>((): (), iter: &mut U) -> ControlFlow<U::Item> {
match iter.next() {
None => ControlFlow::CONTINUE,
Some(x) => ControlFlow::Break(x),
}
}
self.iter_try_fold((), next).break_value()
}
```
Note that despite being implemented in terms of `iter_try_fold`, `next` is still able to benefit from `U`'s `next` method. It therefore does not take the performance hit that implementing `next` directly in terms of `Self::try_fold` causes (in some benchmarks).
This PR also adds `iter_try_rfold` which captures the shared logic of `try_rfold` and `advance_back_by`, as well as `iter_fold` and `iter_rfold` for folding without early exits (used by `fold`, `rfold`, `count`, and `last`).
Benchmark results:
```
before after
bench_flat_map_sum 423,255 ns/iter 414,338 ns/iter
bench_flat_map_ref_sum 1,942,139 ns/iter 2,216,643 ns/iter
bench_flat_map_chain_sum 1,616,840 ns/iter 1,246,445 ns/iter
bench_flat_map_chain_ref_sum 4,348,110 ns/iter 3,574,775 ns/iter
bench_flat_map_chain_option_sum 780,037 ns/iter 780,679 ns/iter
bench_flat_map_chain_option_ref_sum 2,056,458 ns/iter 834,932 ns/iter
```
I added the last two benchmarks specifically to demonstrate an extreme case where `FlatMap::next` can benefit from custom internal iteration of the outer iterator, so take it with a grain of salt. We should probably do a perf run to see if the changes to `next` are worth it in practice.
Add `Iterator::array_chunks` (take N+1)
A revival of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/92393.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
cc `@rossmacarthur` `@scottmcm` `@the8472`
I've tried to address most of the review comments on the previous attempt. The only thing I didn't address is `try_fold` implementation, I've left the "custom" one for now, not sure what exactly should it use.
Reoptimize layout array
This way it's one check instead of two, so hopefully (cc #99117) it'll be simpler for rustc perf too 🤞
Quick demonstration:
```rust
pub fn demo(n: usize) -> Option<Layout> {
Layout::array::<i32>(n).ok()
}
```
Nightly: <https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=release&edition=2021&gist=e97bf33508aa03f38968101cdeb5322d>
```nasm
mov rax, rdi
mov ecx, 4
mul rcx
seto cl
movabs rdx, 9223372036854775805
xor esi, esi
cmp rax, rdx
setb sil
shl rsi, 2
xor edx, edx
test cl, cl
cmove rdx, rsi
ret
```
This PR (note no `mul`, in addition to being much shorter):
```nasm
xor edx, edx
lea rax, [4*rcx]
shr rcx, 61
sete dl
shl rdx, 2
ret
```
This is built atop `@CAD97` 's #99136; the new changes are cb8aba66ef6a0e17f08a0574e4820653e31b45a0.
I added a bunch more tests for `Layout::from_size_align` and `Layout::array` too.
Fix slice::ChunksMut aliasing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94231, details in that issue.
cc `@RalfJung`
This isn't done just yet, all the safety comments are placeholders. But otherwise, it seems to work.
I don't really like this approach though. There's a lot of unsafe code where there wasn't before, but as far as I can tell the only other way to uphold the aliasing requirement imposed by `__iterator_get_unchecked` is to use raw slices, which I think require the same amount of unsafe code. All that would do is tie the `len` and `ptr` fields together.
Oh I just looked and I'm pretty sure that `ChunksExactMut`, `RChunksMut`, and `RChunksExactMut` also need to be patched. Even more reason to put up a draft.
core::any: replace some generic types with impl Trait
This gives a cleaner API since the caller only specifies the concrete type they usually want to.
r? `@yaahc`
Fix `Skip::next` for non-fused inner iterators
`iter.skip(n).next()` will currently call `nth` and `next` in succession on `iter`, without checking whether `nth` exhausts the iterator. Using `?` to propagate a `None` value returned by `nth` avoids this.
Add assertion that `transmute_copy`'s U is not larger than T
This is called out as a safety requirement in the docs, but because knowing this can be done at compile time and constant folded (just like the `align_of` branch is removed), we can just panic here.
I've looked at the asm (using `cargo-asm`) of a function that both is correct and incorrect, and the panic is completely removed, or is unconditional, without needing build-std.
I don't expect this to cause much breakage in the wild. I scanned through https://miri.saethlin.dev/ub for issues that would look like this (error: Undefined Behavior: memory access failed: alloc1768 has size 1, so pointer to 8 bytes starting at offset 0 is out-of-bounds), but couldn't find any.
That doesn't rule out it happening in crates tested that fail earlier for some other reason, though, but it indicates that doing this is rare, if it happens at all. A crater run for this would need to be build and test, since this is a runtime thing.
Also added a few more transmute_copy tests.
Add a special case for align_offset /w stride != 1
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
Stabilize `core::ffi:c_*` and rexport in `std::ffi`
This only stabilizes the base types, not the non-zero variants, since
those have their own separate tracking issue and have not gone through
FCP to stabilize.
This only stabilizes the base types, not the non-zero variants, since
those have their own separate tracking issue and have not gone through
FCP to stabilize.
Allow arithmetic and certain bitwise ops on AtomicPtr
This is mainly to support migrating from `AtomicUsize`, for the strict provenance experiment.
This is a pretty dubious set of APIs, but it should be sufficient to allow code that's using `AtomicUsize` to manipulate a tagged pointer atomically. It's under a new feature gate, `#![feature(strict_provenance_atomic_ptr)]`, but I'm not sure if it needs its own tracking issue. I'm happy to make one, but it's not clear that it's needed.
I'm unsure if it needs changes in the various non-LLVM backends. Because we just cast things to integers anyway (and were already doing so), I doubt it.
API change proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/60Fixes#95492
ptr::copy and ptr::swap are doing untyped copies
The consensus in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63159 seemed to be that these operations should be "untyped", i.e., they should treat the data as raw bytes, should work when these bytes violate the validity invariant of `T`, and should exactly preserve the initialization state of the bytes that are being copied. This is already somewhat implied by the description of "copying/swapping size*N bytes" (rather than "N instances of `T`").
The implementations mostly already work that way (well, for LLVM's intrinsics the documentation is not precise enough to say what exactly happens to poison, but if this ever gets clarified to something that would *not* perfectly preserve poison, then I strongly assume there will be some way to make a copy that *does* perfectly preserve poison). However, I had to adjust `swap_nonoverlapping`; after ``@scottmcm's`` [recent changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94212), that one (sometimes) made a typed copy. (Note that `mem::swap`, which works on mutable references, is unchanged. It is documented as "swapping the values at two mutable locations", which to me strongly indicates that it is indeed typed. It is also safe and can rely on `&mut T` pointing to a valid `T` as part of its safety invariant.)
On top of adding a test (that will be run by Miri), this PR then also adjusts the documentation to indeed stably promise the untyped semantics. I assume this means the PR has to go through t-libs (and maybe t-lang?) FCP.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63159
