Warn about safety of `fetch_update`
Specifically as it relates to the ABA problem.
`fetch_update` is a useful function, and one that isn't provided by, say, C++. However, this does not mean the function is magic. It is implemented in terms of `compare_exchange_weak`, and in particular, suffers from the ABA problem. See the following code, which is a naive implementation of `pop` in a lock-free queue:
```rust
fn pop(&self) -> Option<i32> {
self.front.fetch_update(Ordering::Relaxed, Ordering::Acquire, |front| {
if front == ptr::null_mut() {
None
}
else {
Some(unsafe { (*front).next })
}
}.ok()
}
```
This code is unsound if called from multiple threads because of the ABA problem. Specifically, suppose nodes are allocated with `Box`. Suppose the following sequence happens:
```
Initial: Queue is X -> Y.
Thread A: Starts popping, is pre-empted.
Thread B: Pops successfully, twice, leaving the queue empty.
Thread C: Pushes, and `Box` returns X (very common for allocators)
Thread A: Wakes up, sees the head is still X, and stores Y as the new head.
```
But `Y` is deallocated. This is undefined behaviour.
Adding a note about this problem to `fetch_update` should hopefully prevent users from being misled, and also, a link to this common problem is, in my opinion, an improvement to our docs on atomics.
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
[core] add `Exclusive` to sync
(discussed here: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Adding.20.60SyncWrapper.60.20to.20std)
`Exclusive` is a wrapper that exclusively allows mutable access to the inner value if you have exclusive access to the wrapper. It acts like a compile time mutex, and hold an unconditional `Sync` implementation.
## Justification for inclusion into std
- This wrapper unblocks actual problems:
- The example that I hit was a vector of `futures::future::BoxFuture`'s causing a central struct in a script to be non-`Sync`. To work around it, you either write really difficult code, or wrap the futures in a needless mutex.
- Easy to maintain: this struct is as simple as a wrapper can get, and its `Sync` implementation has very clear reasoning
- Fills a gap: `&/&mut` are to `RwLock` as `Exclusive` is to `Mutex`
## Public Api
```rust
// core::sync
#[derive(Default)]
struct Exclusive<T: ?Sized> { ... }
impl<T: ?Sized> Sync for Exclusive {}
impl<T> Exclusive<T> {
pub const fn new(t: T) -> Self;
pub const fn into_inner(self) -> T;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> Exclusive<T> {
pub const fn get_mut(&mut self) -> &mut T;
pub const fn get_pin_mut(Pin<&mut self>) -> Pin<&mut T>;
pub const fn from_mut(&mut T) -> &mut Exclusive<T>;
pub const fn from_pin_mut(Pin<&mut T>) -> Pin<&mut Exclusive<T>>;
}
impl<T: Future> Future for Exclusive { ... }
impl<T> From<T> for Exclusive<T> { ... }
impl<T: ?Sized> Debug for Exclusive { ... }
```
## Naming
This is a big bikeshed, but I felt that `Exclusive` captured its general purpose quite well.
## Stability and location
As this is so simple, it can be in `core`. I feel that it can be stabilized quite soon after it is merged, if the libs teams feels its reasonable to add. Also, I don't really know how unstable feature work in std/core's codebases, so I might need help fixing them
## Tips for review
The docs probably are the thing that needs to be reviewed! I tried my best, but I'm sure people have more experience than me writing docs for `Core`
### Implementation:
The API is mostly pulled from https://docs.rs/sync_wrapper/latest/sync_wrapper/struct.SyncWrapper.html (which is apache 2.0 licenesed), and the implementation is trivial:
- its an unsafe justification for pinning
- its an unsafe justification for the `Sync` impl (mostly reasoned about by ````@danielhenrymantilla```` here: https://github.com/Actyx/sync_wrapper/pull/2)
- and forwarding impls, starting with derivable ones and `Future`
Simplify memory ordering intrinsics
This changes the names of the atomic intrinsics to always fully include their memory ordering arguments.
```diff
- atomic_cxchg
+ atomic_cxchg_seqcst_seqcst
- atomic_cxchg_acqrel
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_release
- atomic_cxchg_acqrel_failrelaxed
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_relaxed
// And so on.
```
- `seqcst` is no longer implied
- The failure ordering on chxchg is no longer implied in some cases, but now always explicitly part of the name.
- `release` is no longer shortened to just `rel`. That was especially confusing, since `relaxed` also starts with `rel`.
- `acquire` is no longer shortened to just `acq`, such that the names now all match the `std::sync::atomic::Ordering` variants exactly.
- This now allows for more combinations on the compare exchange operations, such as `atomic_cxchg_acquire_release`, which is necessary for #68464.
- This PR only exposes the new possibilities through unstable intrinsics, but not yet through the stable API. That's for [a separate PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98383) that requires an FCP.
Suffixes for operations with a single memory order:
| Order | Before | After |
|---------|--------------|------------|
| Relaxed | `_relaxed` | `_relaxed` |
| Acquire | `_acq` | `_acquire` |
| Release | `_rel` | `_release` |
| AcqRel | `_acqrel` | `_acqrel` |
| SeqCst | (none) | `_seqcst` |
Suffixes for compare-and-exchange operations with two memory orderings:
| Success | Failure | Before | After |
|---------|---------|--------------------------|--------------------|
| Relaxed | Relaxed | `_relaxed` | `_relaxed_relaxed` |
| Relaxed | Acquire | ❌ | `_relaxed_acquire` |
| Relaxed | SeqCst | ❌ | `_relaxed_seqcst` |
| Acquire | Relaxed | `_acq_failrelaxed` | `_acquire_relaxed` |
| Acquire | Acquire | `_acq` | `_acquire_acquire` |
| Acquire | SeqCst | ❌ | `_acquire_seqcst` |
| Release | Relaxed | `_rel` | `_release_relaxed` |
| Release | Acquire | ❌ | `_release_acquire` |
| Release | SeqCst | ❌ | `_release_seqcst` |
| AcqRel | Relaxed | `_acqrel_failrelaxed` | `_acqrel_relaxed` |
| AcqRel | Acquire | `_acqrel` | `_acqrel_acquire` |
| AcqRel | SeqCst | ❌ | `_acqrel_seqcst` |
| SeqCst | Relaxed | `_failrelaxed` | `_seqcst_relaxed` |
| SeqCst | Acquire | `_failacq` | `_seqcst_acquire` |
| SeqCst | SeqCst | (none) | `_seqcst_seqcst` |
clarify how Rust atomics correspond to C++ atomics
``@cbeuw`` noted in https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1963 that the correspondence between C++ atomics and Rust atomics is not quite as obvious as one might think, since in Rust I can use `get_mut` to treat previously non-atomic data as atomic. However, I think using C++20 `atomic_ref`, we can establish a suitable relation between the two -- or do you see problems with that ``@cbeuw?`` (I recall you said there was some issue, but it was deep inside that PR and Github makes it impossible to find...)
Cc ``@thomcc;`` not sure whom else to ping for atomic memory model things.
Change orderings of `Debug` for the Atomic types to `Relaxed`.
This reduces synchronization between threads when debugging the atomic types. Reducing the synchronization means that executions with and without the debug calls will be more consistent, making it easier to debug.
We discussed this on the Rust Community Discord with `@ibraheemdev` before.
This reduces synchronization between threads when
debugging the atomic types.
Reducing the synchronization means that executions with and
without the debug calls will be more consistent,
making it easier to debug.
Remove `#[rustc_deprecated]`
This removes `#[rustc_deprecated]` and introduces diagnostics to help users to the right direction (that being `#[deprecated]`). All uses of `#[rustc_deprecated]` have been converted. CI is expected to fail initially; this requires #95958, which includes converting `stdarch`.
I plan on following up in a short while (maybe a bootstrap cycle?) removing the diagnostics, as they're only intended to be short-term.
Handle rustc_const_stable attribute in library feature collector
The library feature collector in [compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs](551b4fa395/compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs) has only been looking at `#[stable(…)]`, `#[unstable(…)]`, and `#[rustc_const_unstable(…)]` attributes, while ignoring `#[rustc_const_stable(…)]`. The consequences of this were:
- When any const feature got stabilized (changing one or more `rustc_const_unstable` to `rustc_const_stable`), users who had previously enabled that unstable feature using `#![feature(…)]` would get told "unknown feature", rather than rustc's nicer "the feature … has been stable since … and no longer requires an attribute to enable".
This can be seen in the way that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93957#issuecomment-1079794660 failed after rebase:
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `const_ptr_offset`
--> $DIR/offset_from_ub.rs:1:35
|
LL | #![feature(const_ptr_offset_from, const_ptr_offset)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
- We weren't enforcing that a particular feature is either stable everywhere or unstable everywhere, and that a feature that has been stabilized has the same stabilization version everywhere, both of which we enforce for the other stability attributes.
This PR updates the library feature collector to handle `rustc_const_stable`, and fixes places in the standard library and test suite where `rustc_const_stable` was being used in a way that does not meet the rules for a stability attribute.
Add `Atomic*::get_mut_slice`
This PR adds the inverse of `Atomic*::from_mut_slice` introduced in #94384 with the following API:
```rust
// core::sync::atomic
impl Atomic* {
fn get_mut_slice(this: &mut [Self]) -> &mut [*];
}
```
cc `@cuviper`
-----
For now I've used the same tracking issue as `Atomic*::from_mut_slice`, should I open a new one?
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
Add documentation to more `From::from` implementations.
For users looking at documentation through IDE popups, this gives them relevant information rather than the generic trait documentation wording “Performs the conversion”. For users reading the documentation for a specific type for any reason, this informs them when the conversion may allocate or copy significant memory versus when it is always a move or cheap copy.
Notes on specific cases:
* The new documentation for `From<T> for T` explains that it is not a conversion at all.
* Also documented `impl<T, U> Into<U> for T where U: From<T>`, the other central blanket implementation of conversion.
* The new documentation for construction of maps and sets from arrays of keys mentions the handling of duplicates. Future work could be to do this for *all* code paths that convert an iterable to a map or set.
* I did not add documentation to conversions of a specific error type to a more general error type.
* I did not add documentation to unstable code.
This change was prepared by searching for the text "From<... for" and so may have missed some cases that for whatever reason did not match. I also looked for `Into` impls but did not find any worth documenting by the above criteria.
