Print `TypeId` as a `u128` for `Debug`
Since <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121358>, `TypeId` is represented as a `(u64, u64)`. This also made the debug implementation a lot larger, which is especially apparent with pretty formatting.
Change this to convert the inner value back to a `u128` and then print as a tuple struct to make this less noisy.
Current:
TypeId { t: (1403077013027291752, 4518903163082958039) }
TypeId {
t: (
1403077013027291752,
4518903163082958039,
),
}
New:
TypeId(25882202575019293479932656973818029271)
TypeId(
25882202575019293479932656973818029271,
)
Small fixme in core now that split_first has no codegen issues
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109328#issuecomment-1677366881
BTW, I have a crate implementing exactly this kind of an iterator: https://github.com/GrigorenkoPV/head-tail-iter and I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to try and make an ACP for it to get it included in std (or maybe itertools). My only doubt is that it kinda incentives writing O(n^2) algorithms and is not the hard to replace with a `while let` loop (just as in this PR).
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #123237 (Various rustc_codegen_ssa cleanups)
- #126960 (Improve error message in tidy)
- #127002 (Implement `x perf` as a separate tool)
- #127081 (Add a run-make test that LLD is not being used by default on the x64 beta/stable channel)
- #127106 (Improve unsafe extern blocks diagnostics)
- #127110 (Fix a error suggestion for E0121 when using placeholder _ as return types on function signature.)
- #127114 (fix: prefer `(*p).clone` to `p.clone` if the `p` is a raw pointer)
- #127118 (Show `used attribute`'s kind for user when find it isn't applied to a `static` variable.)
- #127122 (Remove uneccessary condition in `div_ceil`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Since <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121358>, `TypeId` is
represented as a `(u64, u64)`. This also made the debug implementation a
lot larger, which is especially apparent with pretty formatting.
Make this less noisy by converting the inner value back to a `u128` then
printing as a tuple struct.
Current:
TypeId { t: (1403077013027291752, 4518903163082958039) }
TypeId {
t: (
1403077013027291752,
4518903163082958039,
),
}
New:
TypeId(25882202575019293479932656973818029271)
TypeId(
25882202575019293479932656973818029271,
)
Remove uneccessary condition in `div_ceil`
Previously, `div_ceil` for unsigned integers had a `rhs > 0` for rounding. That condition however is always fulfilled, since `rhs == 0` would mean a division by zero earlier.
Implement new effects desugaring
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits.` Will write down notes once I have finished.
* [x] See if we want `T: Tr` to desugar into `T: Tr, T::Effects: Compat<true>`
* [x] Fix ICEs on `type Assoc: ~const Tr` and `type Assoc<T: ~const Tr>`
* [ ] add types and traits to minicore test
* [ ] update rustc-dev-guide
Fixes#119717Fixes#123664Fixes#124857Fixes#126148
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.
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```
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
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`).
`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`
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.
Update docs for AtomicBool/U8/I8 with regard to alignment
Fixes#126084.
Since `AtomicBool`/`AtomicU8`/`AtomicI8` are guaranteed to have size == 1, and Rust guarantees that `size % align == 0`, they also must have alignment equal to 1, so some current docs are contradictory/confusing when describing their alignment requirements.
Specifically:
* Fix `AtomicBool::from_ptr` claiming that `align_of::<AtomicBool>() > align_of::<bool>()` on some platforms. (same for `AtomicU8::from_ptr`/`AtomicI8::from_ptr`)
* Explicitly state that `AtomicU8`/`AtomicI8` have the same alignment as `u8`/`i8` (in addition to size and bit validity)
* (internal) Change the `if_not_8_bit` macro to be `if_8_bit` and to allow an "if-else"-like structure, instead of just "if"-like.
---
I opted to leave the "`ptr` must be aligned" wording in `from_ptr`'s docs and just clarify that it is always satsified, instead of just removing the wording entirely. If that is instead preferred I can do that.
