BTreeMap: clean up access to MaybeUninit arrays
Stop exposing and using immutable access to `MaybeUninit` slices when we need and have exclusive access to the tree.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Stabilize `core::slice::fill`
Tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70758
Stabilizes the `core::slice::fill` API in Rust 1.50, adding a `memset` doc alias so people coming from C/C++ looking for this operation can find it in the docs. This API hasn't seen any changes since we changed the signature in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71165/, and it seems like the right time to propose stabilization. Thanks!
r? `@m-ou-se`
BTreeMap: relax the explicit borrow rule to make code shorter and safer
Expressions like `.reborrow_mut().into_len_mut()` are annoyingly long, and kind of dangerous for the reason `reborrow_mut()` is unsafe. By relaxing the single rule, we no longer have to make an exception for functions with a `borrow` name and functions like `as_leaf_mut`. This is largely restoring the declaration style of the btree::node API about a year ago, but with more explanation and consistency.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Deprecate atomic compare_and_swap method
Finish implementing [RFC 1443](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1443-extended-compare-and-swap.md) (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1443).
It was decided to deprecate `compare_and_swap` [back in Rust 1.12 already](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31767#issuecomment-215903038). I can't find any info about that decision being reverted. My understanding is just that it has been forgotten. If there has been a decision on keeping `compare_and_swap` then it's hard to find, and even if this PR does not go through it can act as a place where people can find out about the decision being reverted.
Atomic operations are hard to understand, very hard. And it does not help that there are multiple similar methods to do compare and swap with. They are so similar that for a reader it might be hard to understand the difference. This PR aims to make that simpler by finally deprecating `compare_and_swap` which is essentially just a more limited version of `compare_exchange`. The documentation is also updated (according to the RFC text) to explain the differences a bit better.
Even if we decide to not deprecate `compare_and_swap`. I still think the documentation for the atomic operations should be improved to better describe their differences and similarities. And the documentation can be written nicer than the PR currently proposes, but I wanted to start somewhere. Most of it is just copied from the RFC.
The documentation for `compare_exchange` and `compare_exchange_weak` indeed describe how they work! The problem is that they are more complex and harder to understand than `compare_and_swap`. So for someone who does not fully grasp this they might fall back to using `compare_and_swap`. Making the documentation outline the similarities and differences might build a bridge for people so they can cross over to the more powerful and sometimes more efficient operations.
The conversions I do to avoid the `std` internal deprecation errors are very straight forward `compare_and_swap -> compare_exchange` changes where the orderings are just using the mapping in the new documentation. Only in one place did I use `compare_exchange_weak`. This can probably be improved further. But the goal here was not for those operations to be perfect. Just to not get worse and to allow the deprecation to happen.
This caught several bugs where people expected `slice` to link to the
primitive, but it linked to the module instead.
This also uses `cfg_attr(bootstrap)` since the ambiguity only occurs
when compiling with stage 1.
Added [T; N]::zip()
This is my first PR to rust so I hope I have done everything right, or at least close :)
---
This is PR adds the array method `[T; N]::zip()` which, in my mind, is a natural extension to #75212.
My implementation of `zip()` is mostly just a modified copy-paste of `map()`. Should I keep the comments? Also am I right in assuming there should be no way for the `for`-loop to panic, thus no need for the dropguard seen in the `map()`-function?
The doc comment is in a similar way a slightly modified copy paste of [`Iterator::zip()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.zip)
`@jplatte` mentioned in [#75490](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75490#issuecomment-677790758) `zip_with()`,
> zip and zip_with seem like they would be useful :)
is this something I should add (assuming there is interest for this PR at all :))
Add array search aliases
Missed this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80068. This one will really fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46075.
The last alias especially I'm a little unsure about - maybe fuzzy search should be fixed in rustdoc instead? Happy to make that change although I'd have to figure out how.
r? ``@m-ou-se`` although cc ``@GuillaumeGomez`` for the search issue.
Fix failing build of std on armv5te-unknown-linux-uclibceabi due to missing cmsg_len_zero
I'm getting the following error when trying to build `std` on `armv5te-unknown-linux-uclibceabi`:
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `cmsg_len_zero` in this scope
--> /home/operutka/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/std/src/sys/unix/ext/net/ancillary.rs:376:47
|
376 | let data_len = (*cmsg).cmsg_len - cmsg_len_zero;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Obviously, this branch:
```rust
cfg_if::cfg_if! {
if #[cfg(any(target_os = "android", all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "gnu")))] {
let cmsg_len_zero = libc::CMSG_LEN(0) as libc::size_t;
} else if #[cfg(any(
target_os = "dragonfly",
target_os = "emscripten",
target_os = "freebsd",
all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "musl",),
target_os = "netbsd",
target_os = "openbsd",
))] {
let cmsg_len_zero = libc::CMSG_LEN(0) as libc::socklen_t;
}
}
```
does not cover the case `all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "uclibc")`.
Mark `-1` as an available niche for file descriptors
Based on discussion from <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/can-the-standard-library-shrink-option-file/12768>, the file descriptor `-1` is chosen based on the POSIX API designs that use it as a sentinel to report errors. A bigger niche could've been chosen, particularly on Linux, but would not necessarily be portable.
This PR also adds a test case to ensure that the -1 niche (which is kind of hacky and has no obvious test case) works correctly. It requires the "upper" bound, which is actually -1, to be expressed in two's complement.
