Use box syntax instead of Box::new in Mutex::remutex on Windows
The Box::new(mem::uninitialized()) pattern actually actively copies
uninitialized bytes from the stack into the box, which is a waste of
time. Using the box syntax instead avoids the useless copy.
Prevent broken pipes causing ICEs
As the private `std::io::print_to` panics if there is an I/O error, which is used by `println!`, the compiler would ICE if one attempted to use a broken pipe (e.g. `rustc --help | false`). This introduces a new (private) macro `try_println!` which allows us to avoid this.
As a side note, it seems this macro might be useful publicly (and actually there seems to be [a crate specifically for this purpose](https://crates.io/crates/try_print/)), though that can probably be left for a future discussion.
One slight alternative approach would be to simply early exit without an error (i.e. exit code `0`), which [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/34376#issuecomment-377822526) suggests is the usual approach. I've opted not to take that approach initially, because I think it's more helpful to know when there is a broken pipe.
Fixes#34376.
Inline most of the code paths for conversions with boxed slices
This helps with the specific problem described in #49541, obviously without making any large change to how inlining works in the general case.
Everything involved in the conversions is made `#[inline]`, except for the `<Vec<T>>::into_boxed_slice` entry point which is made `#[inline(always)]` after checking that duplicating the function mentioned in the issue prevented its inlining if I only annotate it with
`#[inline]`.
For the record, that function was:
```rust
pub fn foo() -> Box<[u8]> {
vec![0].into_boxed_slice()
}
```
To help the inliner's job, we also hoist a `self.capacity() != self.len` check in `<Vec<T>>::shrink_to_fit` and mark it as `#[inline]` too.
Move Range*::contains to a single default impl on RangeBounds
Per the ongoing discussion in #32311.
This is my first PR to Rust (woo!), so I don't know if this requires an amendment to the original range_contains RFC, or not, or if we can just do a psuedo-RFC here. While this may no longer follow the explicit decision made in that RFC, I believe this better follows its spirit by adding the new contains method to all Ranges. It also allows users to be generic over all ranges and use this method without writing it themselves (my personal desired use case).
This also somewhat answers the unanswered question about Wrapping ranges in the above issue by instead just punting it to the question of what those types should return for start() & end(), or if they should implement RangeArgument at all. Those types could also implement their own contains method without implementing this trait, in which case the question remains the same.
This does add a new contains method to types that already implemented RangeArgument but not contains. These types are RangeFull, (Bound<T>, Bound<T>), (Bound<&'a T>, Bound<&'a T>). No tests have been added for these types yet. No inherent method has been added either.
r? @alexcrichton
This commit stabilizes the SIMD in Rust for the x86/x86_64 platforms. Notably
this commit is stabilizing:
* The `std::arch::{x86, x86_64}` modules and the intrinsics contained inside.
* The `is_x86_feature_detected!` macro in the standard library
* The `#[target_feature(enable = "...")]` attribute
* The `#[cfg(target_feature = "...")]` matcher
Stabilization of the module and intrinsics were primarily done in
rust-lang-nursery/stdsimd#414 and the two attribute stabilizations are done in
this commit. The standard library is also tweaked a bit with the new way that
stdsimd is integrated.
Note that other architectures like `std::arch::arm` are not stabilized as part
of this commit, they will likely stabilize in the future after they've been
implemented and fleshed out. Similarly the `std::simd` module is also not being
stabilized in this commit, only `std::arch`. Finally, nothing related to `__m64`
is stabilized in this commit either (MMX), only SSE and up types and intrinsics
are stabilized.
Closes#29717Closes#44839Closes#48556
Replace manual iterator exhaust with for_each(drop)
This originally added a dedicated method, `Iterator::exhaust`, and has since been replaced with `for_each(drop)`, which is more idiomatic.
<del>This is just shorthand for `for _ in &mut self {}` or `while let Some(_) = self.next() {}`. This states the intent a lot more clearly than the identical code: run the iterator to completion.
<del>At least personally, my eyes tend to gloss over `for _ in &mut self {}` without fully paying attention to what it does; having a `Drop` implementation akin to:
<del>`for _ in &mut self {}; unsafe { free(self.ptr); }`</del>
<del>Is not as clear as:
<del>`self.exhaust(); unsafe { free(self.ptr); }`
<del>Additionally, I've seen debate over whether `while let Some(_) = self.next() {}` or `for _ in &mut self {}` is more clear, whereas `self.exhaust()` is clearer than both.
rustdoc: port the -C option from rustc
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/49864. The included test won't work without those changes, so this PR includes those commits as well.
When documenting items that require certain target features, it helps to be able to force those target features into existence. Rather than include a flag just to parse those features, i instead decided to port the `-C` flag from rustc in its entirety. It takes the same parameters, because it runs through the same parsing function. This has the added benefit of being able to control the codegen of doctests as well.
One concern i have with the flag is that i set it to stable here. My rationale is that it is a direct port of functionality on rustc that is currently stable, used only in mechanisms that it is originally used for. If needed, i can set it back to be unstable.
Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
The unstable-feature attribute requires an issue (neglecting it is
E0547), which gets used in the error messages. Unfortunately, there are
some cases where "0" is apparently used a placeholder where no issue
exists, directing the user to see the (nonexistent) issue #0. (It would
have been better to either let `issue` be optional—compare to how issue
is an `Option<u32>` in the feature-gate declarations in
libsyntax/feature-gate.rs—or actually require that an issue be created.)
Rather than endeavoring to change how `#[unstable]` works at this time
(given competing contributor and reviewer priorities), this simple patch
proposes the less-ambitious solution of just not adding the "(see
issue)" note when the number is zero.
Resolves#49983.
