This change weakens the descriptions of the
`{as,into,from}_raw_{fd,handle,socket}` descriptions from saying that
they *do* express ownership relations to say that they are *typically used*
in ways that express ownership relations. This needed needed since, for
example, std's own [`RawFd`] implements `{As,From,Into}Fd` without any of
the ownership relationships.
This adds proper `# Safety` comments to `from_raw_{fd,handle,socket}`,
adds the requirement that raw handles be not opened with the
`FILE_FLAG_OVERLAPPED` flag, and merges the `OwnedHandle::from_raw_handle`
comment into the main `FromRawHandle::from_raw_handle` comment.
And, this changes `HandleOrNull` and `HandleOrInvalid` to not implement
`FromRawHandle`, since they are intended for limited use in FFI situations,
and not for generic use, and they have constraints that are stronger than
the those of `FromRawHandle`.
[`RawFd`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/os/unix/io/type.RawFd.html
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.
kmc-solid: Increase the default stack size
This PR increases the default minimum stack size on the [`*-kmc-solid_*`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/kmc-solid.html) Tier 3 targets to 64KiB (Arm) and 128KiB (AArch64).
This value was chosen as a middle ground between supporting a relatively complex program (e.g., an application using a full-fledged off-the-shelf web server framework) with no additional configuration and minimizing resource consumption for the embedded platform that doesn't support lazily-allocated pages nor over-commitment (i.e., wasted stack spaces are wasted physical memory). If the need arises, the users can always set the `RUST_MIN_STACK` environmental variable to override the default stack size or use the platform API directly.
kmc-solid: Inherit the calling task's base priority in `Thread::new`
This PR fixes the initial priority calculation of spawned threads on the [`*-kmc-solid_*`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/kmc-solid.html) Tier 3 targets.
Fixes a spawned task (an RTOS object on top of which threads are implemented for this target; unrelated to async tasks) getting an unexpectedly higher priority if it's spawned by a task whose priority is temporarily boosted by a priority-protection mutex.
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.
unix: Use metadata for `DirEntry::file_type` fallback
When `DirEntry::file_type` fails to match a known `d_type`, we should
fall back to `DirEntry::metadata` instead of a bare `lstat`, because
this is faster and more reliable on targets with `fstatat`.
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
Fixes a spawned task getting an unexpectedly higher priority if it's
spawned by a task whose priority is temporarily boosted by a priority-
protection mutex.
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.
When `DirEntry::file_type` fails to match a known `d_type`, we should
fall back to `DirEntry::metadata` instead of a bare `lstat`, because
this is faster and more reliable on targets with `fstatat`.
fs: Don't copy d_name from struct dirent
The dirent returned from readdir() is only guaranteed to be valid for
d_reclen bytes on common platforms. Since we copy the name separately
anyway, we can copy everything except d_name into DirEntry::entry.
Fixes#93384.
Move unstable is_{arch}_feature_detected! macros to std::arch
These macros are unstable, except for `is_x86_feature_detected` which is still exported from the crate root for backwards-compatibility.
This should unblock the stabilization of `is_aarch64_feature_detected`.
r? ```@m-ou-se```
The dirent returned from readdir() is only guaranteed to be valid for
d_reclen bytes on common platforms. Since we copy the name separately
anyway, we can copy everything except d_name into DirEntry::entry.
Fixes#93384.
kmc-solid: Implement `net::FileDesc::duplicate`
This PR implements `std::sys::solid::net::FileDesc::duplicate`, which was accidentally left out when this target was added by #86191.
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...?).
Bump libc and fix remove_dir_all on Fuchsia after CVE fix
With the previous `is_dir` impl, we would attempt to unlink
a directory in the None branch, but Fuchsia supports returning
ENOTEMPTY from unlinkat() without the AT_REMOVEDIR flag because
we don't currently differentiate unlinking files and directories
by default.
On the Fuchsia side I've opened https://fxbug.dev/92273 to discuss
whether this is the correct behavior, but it doesn't seem like
addressing the error code is necessary to make our tests happy.
Depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/2654 since we
apparently haven't needed to reference DT_UNKNOWN before this.
With the previous `is_dir` impl, we would attempt to unlink
a directory in the None branch, but Fuchsia supports returning
ENOTEMPTY from unlinkat() without the AT_REMOVEDIR flag because
we don't currently differentiate unlinking files and directories
by default.
On the Fuchsia side I've opened https://fxbug.dev/92273 to discuss
whether this is the correct behavior, but it doesn't seem like
addressing the error code is necessary to make our tests happy.
Updates std's libc crate to include DT_UNKNOWN for Fuchsia.
