float types: move copysign, abs, signum to libcore
These operations are explicitly specified to act "bitwise", i.e. they just act on the sign bit and do not even quiet signaling NaNs. We also list them as ["non-arithmetic operations"](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/primitive.f32.html#nan-bit-patterns), and all the other non-arithmetic operations are in libcore. There's no reason to expect them to require any sort of runtime support, and from [these experiments](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50145#issuecomment-997301250) it seems like LLVM indeed compiles them in a way that does not require any sort of runtime support.
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api` since this change takes immediate effect on stable.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50145.
split up the first paragraph of doc comments for better summaries
used `./x clippy -Aclippy::all '-Wclippy::too_long_first_doc_paragraph' library/core library/alloc` to find these issues.
Implement file_lock feature
This adds lock(), lock_shared(), try_lock(), try_lock_shared(), and unlock() to File gated behind the file_lock feature flag
This is the initial implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130994 for Unix and Windows platforms. I will follow it up with an implementation for WASI preview 2
Initialize channel `Block`s directly on the heap
The channel's `Block::new` was causing a stack overflow because it held
32 item slots, instantiated on the stack before moving to `Box::new`.
The 32x multiplier made modestly-large item sizes untenable.
That block is now initialized directly on the heap.
Fixes#102246
try-job: test-various
Compile `test_num_f128` conditionally on `reliable_f128_math` config
With #132434 merged, our internal SGX CI started failing with:
```
05:27:34 = note: rust-lld: error: undefined symbol: fmodl
05:27:34 >>> referenced by arith.rs:617 (core/src/ops/arith.rs:617)
05:27:34 >>> /home/jenkins/workspace/rust-sgx-ci/rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-std/x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx/release/deps/std-5d5f11eb008c9091.std.d8141acc61ab7ac8-cgu.10.rcgu.o:(std::num::test_num::h7dd9449f6c01fde8)
05:27:34 >>> did you mean: fmodf
05:27:34 >>> defined in: /home/jenkins/workspace/rust-sgx-ci/rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-std/x86_64-fortanix-unknown-sgx/release/deps/libcompiler_builtins-0376f439a2ebf305.rlib(compiler_builtins-0376f439a2ebf305.compiler_builtins.c22db39d25d6f802-cgu.148.rcgu.o)
```
This originated from the `test_num_f128` test not having the required conditional compilation. This PR fixes that issue.
cc: ````@jethrogb,```` ````@workingjubilee````
The channel's `Block::new` was causing a stack overflow because it held
32 item slots, instantiated on the stack before moving to `Box::new`.
The 32x multiplier made modestly-large item sizes untenable.
That block is now initialized directly on the heap.
Fixes#102246
unpin and update memchr
I'm unable to build x86_64-pc-windows-gnu Rust due to some weird binutils bug, but thinlto issue seems to be no longer present. Let's give it a go on the CI.
Possibly fixed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129079Fixes#127890
Revert using `HEAP` static in Windows alloc
Fixes#131468
This does the minimum to remove the `HEAP` static that was causing chromium issues. It would be worth having a more substantial look at this module but for now I think this addresses the immediate issue.
cc `@danakj`
Fix an extra newline in rendered std doc
Fixes#132564
(taken from the issue above)
The problem with the formatting is due to that newline between `<code>` and `<svg>`. Any newlines outside of the code (i.e., within elements inside of it) are fine.
Update `compiler-builtins` and enable f128 tests on all non-buggy platforms
Update compiler_builtins to 0.1.138 and pin it. This updates to a new version of builtins that includes [1], which was
the last blocker to us enabling `f128` tests on all platforms.
With that, we now provide symbols necessary to work with `f128` everywhere. This means that we are no longer restricted to systems that provide `f128` symbols themselves, and can enable tests by default.
There are still a handful of platforms that need to remain disabled because of bugs and some that had to get updated.
Math support is still off by default since those symbols are not yet available.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/624
try-job: test-various
try-job: i686-gnu-nopt
With the `compiler-builtins` update to 0.1.137 [1], we now provide
symbols necessary to work with `f128` everywhere. This means that we are
no longer restricted to 64-bit linux, and can enable tests by default.
There are still a handful of platforms that need to remain disabled
because of bugs. This patch additionally disables the following:
1. MIPS [2]
2. 32-bit x86 [3]
Math support is still off by default since those symbols are not yet
available.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132433
[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/96432
[3]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/77401
This updates to a new version of builtins that includes [1], which was
the last blocker to us enabling `f128` tests on all platforms 🎉.
With this update, also change to pinning the version with `=` rather
than using the default carat versioning. This is meant to ensure that
`compiler-builtins` does not get updated as part of the weekly
`Cargo.lock` update, since updates to this crate need to be intentional:
changes to rust-lang/rust and rust-lang/compiler-builtins sometimes need
to be kept in lockstep, unlike most dependencies, and sometimes these
updates can be problematic.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/624
Make `std::os::darwin` public
I'm not sure of the reasoning behind them not being public before, but I think they should be, just like `std::os::ios` and `std::os::macos` are public.
Additionally, I've merged their source code, as it was otherwise just a bunch of unnecessary duplication.
Ultimately, I've done this PR to fix `./x build library --target=aarch64-apple-tvos,aarch64-apple-watchos,aarch64-apple-visionos`, as that currently fails because of dead code warnings.
Since you reviewed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121419
r? davidtwco
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121640.
`@rustbot` label O-tvos O-watchos O-visionos
better test for const HashMap; remove const_hash leftovers
The existing `const_with_hasher` test is kind of silly since the HashMap it constructs can never contain any elements. So this adjusts the test to construct a usable HashMap, which is a bit non-trivial since the default hash builder cannot be built in `const`. `BuildHasherDefault::new()` helps but is unstable (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123197), so we also have a test that does not involve that type.
The second commit removes the last remnants of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104061, since they aren't actually useful -- without const traits, you can't do any hashing in `const`.
Cc ``@rust-lang/libs-api`` ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval``
Closes#104061
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102575
Implement `From<&mut {slice}>` for `Box/Rc/Arc<{slice}>`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/424
New API:
```rust
impl<T: Clone> From<&mut [T]> for Box<[T]>
impl From<&mut str> for Box<str>
impl From<&mut CStr> for Box<CStr>
impl From<&mut OsStr> for Box<OsStr>
impl From<&mut Path> for Box<Path>
impl<T: Clone> From<&mut [T]> for Rc<[T]>
impl From<&mut str> for Rc<str>
impl From<&mut CStr> for Rc<CStr>
impl From<&mut OsStr> for Rc<OsStr>
impl From<&mut Path> for Rc<Path>
impl<T: Clone> From<&mut [T]> for Arc<[T]>
impl From<&mut str> for Arc<str>
impl From<&mut CStr> for Arc<CStr>
impl From<&mut OsStr> for Arc<OsStr>
impl From<&mut Path> for Arc<Path>
```
Since they are trait implementations, I think these are insta-stable.
As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/424#issuecomment-2299415749, a crater run might be needed.
Remove unintended link
Since `#[link_section]` is enclosed in braces, it was being confused with a link during docs compilation.
This caused compilation to fail when running `x dist` since it emitted a warning regarding broken links.
Fix type reference in documents which was being confused with html tags.
Running `x dist` was failing due to it invoking commands with `-D warnings`, which emitted a warning about unclosed html tags.
xous: sync: remove `rustc_const_stable` attribute on Condvar and Mutex new()
These functions had `#[rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_locks", since = "1.63.0")]` on them because they were originally taken from `no_threads`. with d066dfd these no longer compile. Since other platforms do not have this attribute, remove it. This fixes the build for Xous.
These functions had `#[rustc_const_stable(feature = "const_locks", since
= "1.63.0")]` on them because they were originally taken from
`no_threads`. with d066dfd these no longer compile. Since other
platforms do not have this attribute, remove it. This fixes the build
for Xous.
Signed-off-by: Sean Cross <sean@xobs.io>
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, all the holes mentioned above have been closed. There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to be manually marked `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to be sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked), it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or `#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]` functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding `#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No other attributes are required.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
