Instruct LLVM that binary_search returns a valid index
This allows removing bound checks when the return value of `binary_search` is used to index into the slice it was call on. I also added a codegen test for this, not sure if it's the right thing to do (I didn't find anything on the dev guide), but it felt so.
Improve fs error open_from unix
Consistency for #79399
Suggested by JohnTitor
r? `@JohnTitor`
Not user if the error is too long now, do we handle long errors well?
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
update array missing `IntoIterator` msg
fixes#82602
r? ```@estebank``` do you know whether we can use the expr span in `rustc_on_unimplemented`? The label isn't too great rn
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See #67364.)
Derive Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
This derives Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it.
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
Fix Debug implementation for RwLock{Read,Write}Guard.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print `"<locked>"` unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
MutexGuard had this problem too: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57702
ExitStatus: print "exit status: {}" rather than "exit code: {}" on unix
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit
code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can
tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.)
This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier
names in the Rust stdlib.
It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.htmlhttps://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html
Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and
a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename
`std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or
something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably
most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and
system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust
has this wrong terminology.
So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have
already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation.
This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs
which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the
exit status string, except perhaps in tests.
Generalize and inline slice::fill specializations
This makes the memset specialization applicable to more types. And since the code now lives in a generic method it is also eligible for cross-crate inlining which should fix#83235
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's
any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive
implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual
implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that
the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print
"<locked>" unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the
other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
Add IEEE 754 compliant fmt/parse of -0, infinity, NaN
This pull request improves the Rust float formatting/parsing libraries to comply with IEEE 754's formatting expectations around certain special values, namely signed zero, the infinities, and NaN. It also adds IEEE 754 compliance tests that, while less stringent in certain places than many of the existing flt2dec/dec2flt capability tests, are intended to serve as the beginning of a roadmap to future compliance with the standard. Some relevant documentation is also adjusted with clarifying remarks.
This PR follows from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1074, and closes#24623.
The most controversial change here is likely to be that -0 is now printed as -0. Allow me to explain: While there appears to be community support for an opt-in toggle of printing floats as if they exist in the naively expected domain of numbers, i.e. not the extended reals (where floats live), IEEE 754-2019 is clear that a float converted to a string should be capable of being transformed into the original floating point bit-pattern when it satisfies certain conditions (namely, when it is an actual numeric value i.e. not a NaN and the original and destination float width are the same). -0 is given special attention here as a value that should have its sign preserved. In addition, the vast majority of other programming languages not only output `-0` but output `-0.0` here.
While IEEE 754 offers a broad leeway in how to handle producing what it calls a "decimal character sequence", it is clear that the operations a language provides should be capable of round tripping, and it is confusing to advertise the f32 and f64 types as binary32 and binary64 yet have the most basic way of producing a string and then reading it back into a floating point number be non-conformant with the standard. Further, existing documentation suggested that e.g. -0 would be printed with -0 regardless of the presence of the `+` fmt character, but it prints "+0" instead if given such (which was what led to the opening of #24623).
There are other parsing and formatting issues for floating point numbers which prevent Rust from complying with the standard, as well as other well-documented challenges on the arithmetic level, but I hope that this can be the beginning of motion towards solving those challenges.
Document that the SocketAddr memory representation is not stable
Intended to help out with #78802. Work has been put into finding and fixing code that assumes the memory layout of `SocketAddrV4` and `SocketAddrV6`. But it turns out there are cases where new code continues to make the same assumption ([example](96927dc2b7 (diff-917db3d8ca6f862ebf42726b23c72a12b35e584e497ebdb24e474348d7c6ffb6R610-R621))).
The memory layout of a type in `std` is never part of the public API. Unless explicitly stated I guess. But since that is invalidly relied upon by a considerable amount of code for these particular types, it might make sense to explicitly document this. This can be temporary. Once #78802 lands it does not make sense to rely on the layout any longer, and this documentation can also be removed.
Make # pretty print format easier to discover
# Rationale:
I use (cargo cult?) three formats in rust: `{}`, debug `{:?}`, and pretty-print debug `{:#?}`. I discovered `{:#?}` in some blog post or guide when I started working in Rust. While `#` is documented I think it is hard to discover. So taking the good advice of ```@carols10cents``` I am trying to improve the docs with a PR
As a reminder "pretty print" means that where `{:?}` will print something like
```
foo: { b1: 1, b2: 2}
```
`{:#?}` will prints something like
```
foo {
b1: 1
b2: 3
}
```
# Changes
Add an example to `fmt` to try and make it easier to discover `#`
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in rust-lang/rust#78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
Fixes#83046
The program
fn main() {
println!("{:?}", '"');
println!("{:?}", "'");
}
would previously print
'\"'
"\'"
With this patch it now prints:
'"'
"'"
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit
code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can
tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.)
This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier
names in the Rust stdlib.
It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.htmlhttps://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html
Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and
a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename
`std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or
something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably
most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and
system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust
has this wrong terminology.
So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have
already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation.
This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs
which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the
exit status string, except perhaps in tests.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Add Result::into_err where the Ok variant is the never type
Equivalent of #66045 but for the inverse situation where `T: Into<!>` rather than `E: Into<!>`.
I'm using the same feature gate name. I can't see why one of these methods would be OK to stabilize but not the other.
Tracking issue: #61695
Remove Option::{unwrap_none, expect_none}.
This removes `Option::unwrap_none` and `Option::expect_none` since we're not going to stabilize them, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62633.
Closes#62633
stabilize debug_non_exhaustive
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67364
but it is still an open question whether the other `Debug*` struct's should have a similar method. I would guess that would best be put underneath a new feature gate, as this one seems uncontroversial enough to stabilize as is
Expose str::SplitInclusive in alloc and therefore in std
This seems to have been omitted from the beginning when this feature was first introduced in 86bf96291d. Most users won't need to name this type which is probably why this wasn't noticed in the meantime.
See #83372 for a different but related bug.
### Notes for reviewers
I think I have got this right but TBH I am not very familiar with the relationship between core and std and so on. <strike>I also haven't don't any kind of test (not even a build) yet. I will do a local docs build to see that the type now appears in the std docs.</strike> I did a local docs build and it has made this type appear as `std::str::SplitInclusive` as expected
The linkification of the return value from `str::split_inclusive` teleports me to the online url for `core::str::SplitInclusive`. I think this may be a rustdoc anomaly (similar to #79630 maybe) but I am not sure. Perhaps it means I haven't done the `std` -> `core` referrence correctly.
I made this insta-stable since it seems like simply a bug. Please LMK if that is not right. *(edited to add:)* In particular, IDK how this ought to relate to the (?)current release process.
