* Reduce duplicate impls; show only the `fn (T)` and include a sentence
saying that there exists up to twelve of them.
* Show `Copy` and `Clone`.
* Show auto traits like `Send` and `Sync`, and blanket impls like `Any`.
core::any: replace some generic types with impl Trait
This gives a cleaner API since the caller only specifies the concrete type they usually want to.
r? `@yaahc`
Fix `Skip::next` for non-fused inner iterators
`iter.skip(n).next()` will currently call `nth` and `next` in succession on `iter`, without checking whether `nth` exhausts the iterator. Using `?` to propagate a `None` value returned by `nth` avoids this.
Use split_once in FromStr docs
Current implementation:
```rust
fn from_str(s: &str) -> Result<Self, Self::Err> {
let coords: Vec<&str> = s.trim_matches(|p| p == '(' || p == ')' )
.split(',')
.collect();
let x_fromstr = coords[0].parse::<i32>()?;
let y_fromstr = coords[1].parse::<i32>()?;
Ok(Point { x: x_fromstr, y: y_fromstr })
}
```
Creating the vector is not necessary, `split_once` does the job better.
Alternatively we could also remove `trim_matches` with `strip_prefix` and `strip_suffix`:
```rust
let (x, y) = s
.strip_prefix('(')
.and_then(|s| s.strip_suffix(')'))
.and_then(|s| s.split_once(','))
.unwrap();
```
The question is how much 'correctness' is too much and distracts from the example. In a real implementation you would also not unwrap (or originally access the vector without bounds checks), but implementing a custom Error and adding a `From<ParseIntError>` and implementing the `Error` trait adds a lot of code to the example which is not relevant to the `FromStr` trait.
Add assertion that `transmute_copy`'s U is not larger than T
This is called out as a safety requirement in the docs, but because knowing this can be done at compile time and constant folded (just like the `align_of` branch is removed), we can just panic here.
I've looked at the asm (using `cargo-asm`) of a function that both is correct and incorrect, and the panic is completely removed, or is unconditional, without needing build-std.
I don't expect this to cause much breakage in the wild. I scanned through https://miri.saethlin.dev/ub for issues that would look like this (error: Undefined Behavior: memory access failed: alloc1768 has size 1, so pointer to 8 bytes starting at offset 0 is out-of-bounds), but couldn't find any.
That doesn't rule out it happening in crates tested that fail earlier for some other reason, though, but it indicates that doing this is rare, if it happens at all. A crater run for this would need to be build and test, since this is a runtime thing.
Also added a few more transmute_copy tests.
Rearrange slice::split_mut to remove bounds check
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86313
Turns out that all we need to do here is reorder the bounds checks to convince LLVM that all the bounds checks can be removed. It seems like LLVM just fails to propagate the original length information past the first bounds check and into the second one. With this implementation it doesn't need to, each check can be proven inbounds based on the one immediately previous.
I've gradually convinced myself that this implementation is unambiguously better based on the above logic, but maybe this is still deserving of a codegen test?
Also the mentioned borrowck limitation no longer seems to exist.
Add a special case for align_offset /w stride != 1
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
Stabilize `core::ffi::CStr`, `alloc::ffi::CString`, and friends
Stabilize the `core_c_str` and `alloc_c_string` feature gates.
Change `std::ffi` to re-export these types rather than creating type
aliases, since they now have matching stability.
Stabilize the `core_c_str` and `alloc_c_string` feature gates.
Change `std::ffi` to re-export these types rather than creating type
aliases, since they now have matching stability.
Stabilize `core::ffi:c_*` and rexport in `std::ffi`
This only stabilizes the base types, not the non-zero variants, since
those have their own separate tracking issue and have not gone through
FCP to stabilize.
This only stabilizes the base types, not the non-zero variants, since
those have their own separate tracking issue and have not gone through
FCP to stabilize.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #99045 (improve print styles)
- #99086 (Fix display of search result crate filter dropdown)
- #99100 (Fix binary name in help message for test binaries)
- #99103 (Avoid some `&str` to `String` conversions)
- #99109 (fill new tracking issue for `feature(strict_provenance_atomic_ptr)`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Enforce that layout size fits in isize in Layout
As it turns out, enforcing this _in APIs that already enforce `usize` overflow_ is fairly trivial. `Layout::from_size_align_unchecked` continues to "allow" sizes which (when rounded up) would overflow `isize`, but these are now declared as library UB for `Layout`, meaning that consumers of `Layout` no longer have to check this before making an allocation.
(Note that this is "immediate library UB;" IOW it is valid for a future release to make this immediate "language UB," and there is an extant patch to do so, to allow Miri to catch this misuse.)
See also #95252, [Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Layout.20Isn't.20Enforcing.20The.20isize.3A.3AMAX.20Rule).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95334
Some relevant quotes:
`@eddyb,` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95252#issuecomment-1078513769
> [B]ecause of the non-trivial presence of both of these among code published on e.g. crates.io:
>
> 1. **`Layout` "producers" / `GlobalAlloc` "users"**: smart pointers (including `alloc::rc` copies with small tweaks), collections, etc.
> 2. **`Layout` "consumers" / `GlobalAlloc` "providers"**: perhaps fewer of these, but anything built on top of OS APIs like `mmap` will expose `> isize::MAX` allocations (on 32-bit hosts) if they lack extra checks
>
> IMO the only responsible option is to enforce the `isize::MAX` limit in `Layout`, which:
>
> * makes `Layout` _sound_ in terms of only ever allowing allocations where `(alloc_base_ptr: *mut u8).offset(size)` is never UB
> * frees both "producers" and "consumers" of `Layout` from manually reimplementing the checks
> * manual checks can be risky, e.g. if the final size passed to the allocator isn't the one being checked
> * this applies retroactively, fixing the overall soundness of existing code with zero transition period or _any_ changes required from users (as long as going through `Layout` is mandatory, making a "choke point")
>
>
> Feel free to quote this comment onto any relevant issue, I might not be able to keep track of developments.
`@Gankra,` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95252#issuecomment-1078556371
> As someone who spent way too much time optimizing libcollections checks for this stuff and tried to splatter docs about it everywhere on the belief that it was a reasonable thing for people to manually take care of: I concede the point, it is not reasonable. I am wholy spiritually defeated by the fact that _liballoc_ of all places is getting this stuff wrong. This isn't throwing shade at the folks who implemented these Rc features, but rather a statement of how impractical it is to expect anyone out in the wider ecosystem to enforce them if _some of the most audited rust code in the library that defines the very notion of allocating memory_ can't even reliably do it.
>
> We need the nuclear option of Layout enforcing this rule. Code that breaks this rule is _deeply_ broken and any "regressions" from changing Layout's contract is a _correctness_ fix. Anyone who disagrees and is sufficiently motivated can go around our backs but the standard library should 100% refuse to enable them.
cc also `@RalfJung` `@rust-lang/wg-allocators.` Even though this technically supersedes #95252, those potential failure points should almost certainly still get nicer panics than just "unwrap failed" (which they would get by this PR).
It might additionally be worth recommending to users of the `Layout` API that they should ideally use `.and_then`/`?` to complete the entire layout calculation, and then `panic!` from a single location at the end of `Layout` manipulation, to reduce the overhead of the checks and optimizations preserving the exact location of each `panic` which are conceptually just one failure: allocation too big.
Probably deserves a T-lang and/or T-libs-api FCP (this technically solidifies the [objects must be no larger than `isize::MAX`](https://rust-lang.github.io/unsafe-code-guidelines/layout/scalars.html#isize-and-usize) rule further, and the UCG document says this hasn't been RFCd) and a crater run. Ideally, no code exists that will start failing with this addition; if it does, it was _likely_ (but not certainly) causing UB.
Changes the raw_vec allocation path, thus deserves a perf run as well.
I suggest hiding whitespace-only changes in the diff view.
