Add carrying_add, borrowing_sub, widening_mul, carrying_mul methods to integers
This comes in part from my own attempts to make (crude) big integer implementations, and also due to the stalled discussion in [RFC 2417](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2417). My understanding is that changes like these are best offered directly as code and then an RFC can be opened if there needs to be more discussion before stabilisation. Since all of these methods are unstable from the start, I figured I might as well offer them now.
I tried looking into intrinsics, messed around with a few different implementations, and ultimately concluded that these are "good enough" implementations for now to at least put up some code and maybe start bikeshedding on a proper API for these.
For the `carrying_add` and `borrowing_sub`, I tried looking into potential architecture-specific code and realised that even using the LLVM intrinsics for `addcarry` and `subborrow` on x86 specifically, I was getting exactly the same assembly as the naive implementation using `overflowing_add` and `overflowing_sub`, although the LLVM IR did differ because of the architecture-specific code. Longer-term I think that they would be best suited to specific intrinsics as that would make optimisations easier (instructions like add-carry tend to use implicit flags, and thus can only be optimised if they're done one-after-another, and thus it would make the most sense to have compact intrinsics that can be merged together easily).
For `widening_mul` and `carrying_mul`, for now at least, I simply cast to the larger type and perform arithmetic that way, since we currently have no intrinsic that would work better for 128-bit integers. In the future, I also think that some form of intrinsic would work best to cover that case, but for now at least, I think that they're "good enough" for now.
The main reasoning for offering these directly to the standard library even though they're relatively niche optimisations is to help ensure that the code generated for them is optimal. Plus, these operations alone aren't enough to create big integer implementations, although they could help simplify the code required to do so and make it a bit more accessible for the average implementor.
That said, I 100% understand if any or all of these methods are not desired simply because of how niche they are. Up to you. 🤷🏻
Document `std::env::current_exe` possible rename behaviour
It might not be obvious that the "path of the current running executable" may (or may not) imply "at the time it was loaded".
This came up recently in chat so I thought it might be worth documenting.
Update the stdarch submodule
This notably brings in a number of codegen updates to ensure that wasm
simd intrinsics generate the expected instruction with LLVM 13
Add Saturating type (based on Wrapping type)
Tracking #87920
### Unresolved Questions
<!--
Include any open questions that need to be answered before the feature can be
stabilised.
-->
- [x] ~`impl Div for Saturating<T>` falls back on inner integer division - which seems alright?~
- [x] add `saturating_div`? (to respect division by `-1`)
- [x] There is no `::saturating_shl` and `::saturating_shr`. (How to) implement `Shl`, `ShlAssign`, `Shr` and `ShrAssign`?
- [naively](3f7d2ce28f)
- [x] ~`saturating_neg` is only implemented on [signed integer types](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/?search=saturating_n)~
- [x] Is the implementation copied over from the `Wrapping`-type correct for `Saturating`?
- [x] `Saturating::rotate_left`
- [x] `Saturating::rotate_right`
- [x] `Not`
- [x] `BitXorOr` and `BitXorOrAssign`
- [x] `BitOr` and `BitOrAssign`
- [x] `BitAnd` and `BitAndAssign`
- [x] `Saturating::swap_bytes`
- [x] `Saturating::reverse_bits`
Add `c_size_t` and `c_ssize_t` to `std::os::raw`.
Apparently these aren't guaranteed to be the same, and are merely "always the same in practice" (see https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-lang.2Fwg-unsafe-code-guidelines/topic/.60usize.60.20vs.20.60size_t.60).
This is a big footgun, but I suspect it can be alleviated if we expose this and start migrating people to it in advance of any platforms that ever have this as different.
I'll file a tracking issue after this gets some traction.
Use if-let guards in the codebase and various other pattern cleanups
Dogfooding if-let guards as experimentation for the feature.
Tracking issue #51114. Conflicts with #87937.
Stabilise BufWriter::into_parts
The FCP for this has already completed, in #80690.
This was just blocked on #85901 (which changed the name), which is now merged. The original stabilisation MR was #84770 but that has a lot of noise in it, and I also accidentally deleted the branch while trying to tidy up. So here is a new MR. Sorry for the noise.
Closes#80690
Errorkind reorder
I was doing a bit more work in this area and the untidiness of these two orderings bothered me.
The commit messages have the detailed rationale. For your convenience, I c&p them here:
```
io::ErrorKind: rationalise ordering in main enum
It is useful to keep some coherent structure to this ordering. In
particular, Other and Uncategorized should be next to each other, at
the end.
Also it seems to make sense to treat UnexpectedEof and OutOfMemory
specially, since they are not like the other errors (despite
OutOfMemory also being generatable by some OS errors).
So:
* Move Other to the end, just before Uncategorized
* Move Unsupported to between Interrupted and UnexpectedEof
* Add some comments documenting where to add things
```
```
io::Error: alphabeticise the match in as_str()
There was no rationale for the previous ordering.
```
r? kennytm since that's who rust-highfive picked before, in #88294 which I accidentally closed.
Add SAFETY comments to core::slice::sort::partition_in_blocks
A few more SAFETY comments for #66219. There are still a few more in this module.
`@rustbot` label T-libs T-compiler C-cleanup
Fix references to `ControlFlow` in docs
The `Iterator::for_each` method previously stated that it was not possible to use `break` and `continue` in it — this has been updated to acknowledge the stabilization of `ControlFlow`. Additionally, `ControlFlow` was referred to as `crate::ops::ControlFlow` which is not the correct path for an end user.
r? `@jyn514`
Fix typo “a Rc” → “an Rc” (and a few more)
After stumbling about it in the dev-guide, I’ve devided to eliminate all mentions of “a Rc”, replacing it with “an Rc”. E.g.
```plain
$ rg "(^|[^'])\ba\b[^\w=:]*\bRc"
compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/owning_ref/mod.rs
1149:/// Typedef of a owning reference that uses a `Rc` as the owner.
library/std/src/ffi/os_str.rs
919: /// Converts a [`OsString`] into a [`Rc`]`<OsStr>` without copying or allocating.
library/std/src/ffi/c_str.rs
961: /// Converts a [`CString`] into a [`Rc`]`<CStr>` without copying or allocating.
src/doc/rustc-dev-guide/src/query.md
61:are cheaply cloneable; insert a `Rc` if necessary).
src/doc/book/src/ch15-06-reference-cycles.md
72:decreases the reference count of the `a` `Rc<List>` instance from 2 to 1 as
library/alloc/src/rc.rs
1746: /// Converts a generic type `T` into a `Rc<T>`
```
_(the match in the book is a false positive)_
Since the dev-guide is a submodule, it’s getting a separate PR: rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1191
I’ve also gone ahead and done the same search for `RwLock` and hit a few cases in the `OwningRef` adaption. Then, I couldn’t keep the countless cases of “a owning …” or “a owner” unaddressed, which concludes this PR.
`@rustbot` label C-cleanup
Adjust / fix documentation of `Arc::make_mut`
Related discussion in the users forum:
[Whatʼs this alleged difference between Arc::make_mut and Rc::make_mut? – The Rust Programming Language Forum](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-s-this-alleged-difference-between-arc-make-mut-and-rc-make-mut/63747?u=steffahn)
Also includes a small formatting improvement in the documentation of `Rc::make_mut`.
This PR makes the two documentations in question complete analogs. The previously claimed point in which one “differs from the behavior of” the other turns out to be incorrect, AFAIK.
One remaining inaccuracy: `Weak` pointers aren’t disassociated from the allocation but only from the contained value, i.e. in case of outstanding `Weak` pointers there still is a new allocation created, just the call to `.clone()` is avoided, instead the value is moved from one allocation to the other.
`@rustbot` label T-libs-api, A-docs
add Cell::as_array_of_cells, similar to Cell::as_slice_of_cells
I'd like to propose adding `Cell::as_array_of_cells`, as a natural analog to `Cell::as_slice_of_cells`. I don't have a specific use case in mind, other than that supporting slices but not arrays feels like a gap. Do other folks agree with that intuition? Would this addition be substantial enough to need an RFC?
---
Previously, converting `&mut [T; N]` to `&[Cell<T>; N]` looks like this:
```rust
let array = &mut [1, 2, 3];
let cells: &[Cell<i32>; 3] = Cell::from_mut(&mut array[..])
.as_slice_of_cells()
.try_into()
.unwrap();
```
With this new helper method, it looks like this:
```rust
let array = &mut [1, 2, 3];
let cells = Cell::from_mut(array).as_array_of_cells();
```
It is useful to keep some coherent structure to this ordering. In
particular, Other and Uncategorized should be next to each other, at
the end.
Also it seems to make sense to treat UnexpectedEof and OutOfMemory
specially, since they are not like the other errors (despite
OutOfMemory also being generatable by some OS errors).
So:
* Move Other to the end, just before Uncategorized
* Move Unsupported to between Interrupted and UnexpectedEof
* Add some comments documenting where to add things
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Get piece unchecked in `write`
We already use specialized `zip`, but it seems like we can do a little better by not checking `pieces` length at all.
`Arguments` constructors are now unsafe. So the `format_args!` expansion now includes an `unsafe` block.
<details>
<summary>Local Bench Diff</summary>
```text
name before ns/iter after ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
fmt::write_str_macro1 22,967 19,718 -3,249 -14.15% x 1.16
fmt::write_str_macro2 35,527 32,654 -2,873 -8.09% x 1.09
fmt::write_str_macro_debug 571,953 575,973 4,020 0.70% x 0.99
fmt::write_str_ref 9,579 9,459 -120 -1.25% x 1.01
fmt::write_str_value 9,573 9,572 -1 -0.01% x 1.00
fmt::write_u128_max 176 173 -3 -1.70% x 1.02
fmt::write_u128_min 138 134 -4 -2.90% x 1.03
fmt::write_u64_max 139 136 -3 -2.16% x 1.02
fmt::write_u64_min 129 135 6 4.65% x 0.96
fmt::write_vec_macro1 24,401 22,273 -2,128 -8.72% x 1.10
fmt::write_vec_macro2 37,096 35,602 -1,494 -4.03% x 1.04
fmt::write_vec_macro_debug 588,291 589,575 1,284 0.22% x 1.00
fmt::write_vec_ref 9,568 9,732 164 1.71% x 0.98
fmt::write_vec_value 9,516 9,625 109 1.15% x 0.99
```
</details>
Implement `AsFd` etc. for `UnixListener`.
Implement `AsFd`, `From<OwnedFd>`, and `Into<OwnedFd>` for
`UnixListener`. This is a follow-up to #87329.
r? `@joshtriplett`
Previously, converting `&mut [T; N]` to `&[Cell<T>; N]` looks like this:
let array = &mut [1, 2, 3];
let cells: &[Cell<i32>; 3] = Cell::from_mut(&mut array[..])
.as_slice_of_cells()
.try_into()
.unwrap();
With this new helper method, it looks like this:
let array = &mut [1, 2, 3];
let cells: &[Cell<i32>; 3] = Cell::from_mut(array).as_array_of_cells();
