Document valid values of the char type
As discussed at #93392, the current documentation on what constitutes a valid char isn't very detailed and is partly on the MAX constant rather than the type itself.
This PR expands on that information, stating the actual numerical range, giving examples of what won't work, and also mentions how a `char` might be a valid USV but still not be a defined character (terminology checked against [Unicode 14.0, table 2-3](https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/ch02.pdf#M9.61673.TableTitle.Table.22.Types.of.Code.Points)).
Implement `RawWaker` and `Waker` getters for underlying pointers
implement #87021
New APIs:
- `RawWaker::data(&self) -> *const ()`
- `RawWaker::vtable(&self) -> &'static RawWakerVTable`
- ~`Waker::as_raw_waker(&self) -> &RawWaker`~ `Waker::as_raw(&self) -> &RawWaker`
This third one is an auxiliary function to make the two APIs above more useful. Since we can only get `&Waker` in `Future::poll`, without this, we need to `transmute` it into `&RawWaker` (relying on `repr(transparent)`) in order to access its data/vtable pointers.
~Not sure if it should be named `as_raw` or `as_raw_waker`. Seems we always use `as_<something-raw>` instead of just `as_raw`. But `as_raw_waker` seems not quite consistent with `Waker::from_raw`.~ As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91828#discussion_r770729837, use `as_raw`.
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
Remove deprecated and unstable slice_partition_at_index functions
They have been deprecated since commit 01ac5a97c9
which was part of the 1.49.0 release, so from the point of nightly,
11 releases ago.
review the total_cmp documentation
The documentation has been restructured to split out a brief summary
paragraph out from the following elaborating paragraphs.
I also attempted my hand at wording improvements and adding articles
where I felt them missing, but being non-native english speaker these
may need more thorough review.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72599
Clarify documentation on char::MAX
As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91836#issuecomment-994106874, the documentation on `char::MAX` is not quite correct – USVs are not "only ones within a certain range", they are code points _outside_ a certain range. I have corrected this and given the actual numbers as there is no reason to hide them.
Make `char::DecodeUtf16::size_hist` more precise
New implementation takes into account contents of `self.buf` and rounds lower bound up instead of down.
Fixes#88762
Revival of #88763
Create `core::fmt::ArgumentV1` with generics instead of fn pointer
Split from (and prerequisite of) #90488, as this seems to have perf implication.
`@rustbot` label: +T-libs
The documentation has been restructured to split out a brief summary
paragraph out from the following elaborating paragraphs.
I also attempted my hand at wording improvements and adding articles
where I felt them missing, but being non-native english speaker these
may need more thorough review.
Add `intrinsics::const_deallocate`
Tracking issue: #79597
Related: #91884
This allows deallocation of a memory allocated by `intrinsics::const_allocate`. At the moment, this can be only used to reduce memory usage, but in the future this may be useful to detect memory leaks (If an allocated memory remains after evaluation, raise an error...?).
Unimpl {Add,Sub,Mul,Div,Rem,BitXor,BitOr,BitAnd}<$t> for Saturating<$t>
Tracking issue #92354
Analog to 9648b313cc#93208 reduce `saturating_int_assign_impl` (#93208) to:
```rust
let mut value = Saturating(2u8);
value += 3u8;
value -= 1u8;
value *= 2u8;
value /= 2u8;
value %= 2u8;
value ^= 255u8;
value |= 123u8;
value &= 2u8;
```
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93208#issuecomment-1022564429
Add links to the reference and rust by example for asm! docs and lints
These were previously removed in #91728 due to broken links.
cc ``@ehuss`` since this updates the rust-by-example submodule
This makes `PartialOrd` consistent with the other three traits in this
module, which all include links to their respective mathematical concepts
on Wikipedia.
impl Not for !
The lack of this impl caused trouble for me in some degenerate cases of macro-generated code of the form `if !$cond {...}`, even without `feature(never_type)` on a stable compiler. Namely if `$cond` contains a `return` or `break` or similar diverging expression, which would otherwise be perfectly legal in boolean position, the code previously failed to compile with:
```console
error[E0600]: cannot apply unary operator `!` to type `!`
--> library/core/tests/ops.rs:239:8
|
239 | if !return () {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^ cannot apply unary operator `!`
```
