docs: say "includes" instead of "does include"
Provides more visual difference between the negative ("does not include") and the positive ("includes"). Both phrases have the same meaning.
std: separate TLS key creation from TLS access
Currently, `std` performs an atomic load to get the OS key on every access to `StaticKey` even when the key is already known. This PR thus replaces `StaticKey` with the platform-specific `get` and `set` function and a new `LazyKey` type that acts as a `LazyLock<Key>`, allowing the reuse of the retreived key for multiple accesses.
Related to #110897.
core: avoid `extern type`s in formatting infrastructure
```@RalfJung``` [said](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Use.20of.20.60extern.20type.60.20in.20formatting.20machinery/near/446552837):
>How attached are y'all to using `extern type` in the formatting machinery?
Seems like this was introduced a [long time ago](34ef8f5441). However, it's also [not really compatible with Stacked Borrows](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/256), and only works currently because we effectively treat references-to-extern-type almost like raw pointers in Stacked Borrows -- which of course is unsound, it's not how LLVM works. I was planning to make Miri emit a warning when this happens to avoid cases like [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126814#issuecomment-2183816373) where people use extern type specifically to silence Miri without realizing what happens. but with the formatting machinery using extern type, this warning would just show up everywhere...
>
> The "proper" way to do this in Stacked Borrows is to use raw pointers (or `NonNull`).
This PR does just that.
r? ```@RalfJung```
Remove `__rust_force_expr`.
This was added (with a different name) to improve an error message. It is no longer needed -- removing it changes the error message, but overall I think the new message is no worse:
- the mention of `#` in the first line is a little worse,
- but the extra context makes it very clear what the problem is, perhaps even clearer than the old message,
- and the removal of the note about the `expr` fragment (an internal detail of `__rust_force_expr`) is an improvement.
Overall I think the error is quite clear and still far better than the old message that prompted #61933, which didn't even mention patterns.
The motivation for this is #124141, which will cause pasted metavariables to be tokenized and reparsed instead of the AST node being cached. This change in behaviour occasionally has a non-zero perf cost, and `__rust_force_expr` causes the tokenize/reparse step to occur twice. Removing `__rust_force_expr` greatly reduces the extra overhead for the `deep-vector` benchmark.
r? ```@oli-obk```
Add more constants, functions, and tests for `f16` and `f128`
This adds everything that was in some way blocked on const eval, since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126429 landed. There is a lot of `cfg(bootstrap)` since that is a fairly recent change.
`f128` tests are disabled on everything except x86_64 and Linux aarch64, which are two platforms I know have "good" support for these types - meaning basic math symbols are available and LLVM doesn't hit selection crashes. `f16` tests are enabled on almost everything except for known LLVM crashes. Doctests are only enabled on x86_64.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909
fix Drop items getting leaked in Filter::next_chunk
The optimization only makes sense for non-drop elements anyway. Use the default implementation for items that are Drop instead.
It also simplifies the implementation.
fixes#126872
tracking issue #98326
The optimization only makes sense for non-drop elements anyway.
Use the default implementation for items that are Drop instead.
It also simplifies the implementation.
core: VaArgSafe is an unsafe trait
`T: VaArgSafe` is relied on for soundness. Safe impls promise nothing. Therefore this must be an unsafe trait. Slightly pedantic, as only core can impl this, but we *could* choose to unseal the trait. That would allow soundly (but unsafely) implementing this for e.g. a `#[repr(C)] struct` that should be passable by varargs.
Relates to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#98871
Currently, `std` performs an atomic load to get the OS key on every access to `StaticKey` even when the key is already known. This PR thus replaces `StaticKey` with the platform-specific `get` and `set` function and a new `LazyKey` type that acts as a `LazyLock<Key>`, allowing the reuse of the retreived key for multiple accesses.
This suite tests all library functions that are now available for the
types. Tests are only run on certain platforms where `f16` and `f128`
are known to work (have symbols available and don't crash LLVM).
This adds everything that was directly or transitively blocked on const
arithmetic for these types, which was recently merged.
Since const arithmetic is recent, most of these need to be gated by
`bootstrap`.
Anything that relies on intrinsics that are still missing is excluded.
The symbols that these tests rely on are not available on all platforms
and some ABIs are buggy, tests that rely on external functions are
configured to only run on x86 (`f128`) or aarch64 (`f16`).
There are some complexities about what platforms we can test f16 and
f128 on. Put this in build.rs so we have an easy way to configure tests
with a single attribute, and keep it up to date.
This was added (with a different name) to improve an error message. It
is no longer needed -- removing it changes the error message, but overall
I think the new message is no worse:
- the mention of `#` in the first line is a little worse,
- but the extra context makes it very clear what the problem is, perhaps
even clearer than the old message,
- and the removal of the note about the `expr` fragment (an internal
detail of `__rust_force_expr`) is an improvement.
Overall I think the error is quite clear and still far better than the
old message that prompted #61933, which didn't even mention patterns.
The motivation for this is #124141, which will cause pasted
metavariables to be tokenized and reparsed instead of the AST node being
cached. This change in behaviour occasionally has a non-zero perf cost,
and `__rust_force_expr` causes the tokenize/reparse step to occur twice.
Removing `__rust_force_expr` greatly reduces the extra overhead for the
`deep-vector` benchmark.
`T: VaArgSafe` is relied on for soundness. Safe impls promise nothing.
Therefore this must be an unsafe trait. Slightly pedantic, as
only core can impl this, but we could choose to unseal the trait.
That would allow soundly (but unsafely) implementing this for e.g.
a `#[repr(C)] struct` that should be passable by varargs.
SmartPointer derive-macro
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Possibly replacing #123472 for continued upkeep of the proposal rust-lang/rfcs#3621 and implementation of the tracking issue #123430.
cc `@Darksonn` `@wedsonaf`
Remove `MaybeUninit::uninit_array()` and replace it with inline const blocks.
\[This PR originally contained the changes in #125995 too. See edit history for the original PR description.]
The documentation of `MaybeUninit::uninit_array()` says:
> Note: in a future Rust version this method may become unnecessary when Rust allows [inline const expressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76001). The example below could then use `let mut buf = [const { MaybeUninit::<u8>::uninit() }; 32];`.
The PR adding it also said: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a standard library method that will be replaceable with `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
That time has come to pass — inline const expressions are stable — so `MaybeUninit::uninit_array()` is now unnecessary. The only remaining question is whether it is an important enough *convenience* to keep it around.
I believe it is net good to remove this function, on the principle that it is better to compose two orthogonal features (`MaybeUninit` and array construction) than to have a specific function for the specific combination, now that that is possible.
This is possible now that inline const blocks are stable; the idea was
even mentioned as an alternative when `uninit_array()` was added:
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a
> standard library method that will be replaceable with
> `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
Const array repetition and inline const blocks are now stable (in the
next release), so that circumstance has come to pass, and we no longer
have reason to want `uninit_array()` other than convenience. Therefore,
let’s evaluate the inconvenience by not using `uninit_array()` in
the standard library, before potentially deleting it entirely.
std: refactor the TLS implementation
As discovered by Mara in #110897, our TLS implementation is a total mess. In the past months, I have simplified the actual macros and their expansions, but the majority of the complexity comes from the platform-specific support code needed to create keys and register destructors. In keeping with #117276, I have therefore moved all of the `thread_local_key`/`thread_local_dtor` modules to the `thread_local` module in `sys` and merged them into a new structure, so that future porters of `std` can simply mix-and-match the existing code instead of having to copy the same (bad) implementation everywhere. The new structure should become obvious when looking at `sys/thread_local/mod.rs`.
Unfortunately, the documentation changes associated with the refactoring have made this PR rather large. That said, this contains no functional changes except for two small ones:
* the key-based destructor fallback now, by virtue of sharing the implementation used by macOS and others, stores its list in a `#[thread_local]` static instead of in the key, eliminating one indirection layer and drastically simplifying its code.
* I've switched over ZKVM (tier 3) to use the same implementation as WebAssembly, as the implementation was just a way worse version of that
Please let me know if I can make this easier to review! I know these large PRs aren't optimal, but I couldn't think of any good intermediate steps.
`@rustbot` label +A-thread-locals
