Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.
The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped.
If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate.
[Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286#issuecomment-1862159766)
Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
This PR does a few different things based around stabilizing `slice_first_last_chunk`. They are split up so this PR can be by-commit reviewed, I can move parts to a separate PR if desired.
This feature provides a very elegant API to extract arrays from either end of a slice, such as for parsing integers from binary data.
## Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/69
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774
This stabilizes the functionality from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774:
```rust
impl [T] {
pub const fn first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn split_first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T; N], &[T])>;
pub fn split_first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T; N], &mut [T])>;
pub const fn split_last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T], &[T; N])>;
pub fn split_last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T; N])>;
}
```
Const stabilization is included for all non-mut methods, which are blocked on `const_mut_refs`. This change includes marking the trivial function `slice_split_at_unchecked` const-stable for internal use (but not fully stable).
## Remove `split_array` slice methods
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83233#pullrequestreview-780315524
This PR also removes the following unstable methods from the `split_array` feature, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091:
```rust
impl<T> [T] {
pub fn split_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T; N], &[T]);
pub fn split_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T; N], &mut [T]);
pub fn rsplit_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T], &[T; N]);
pub fn rsplit_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T; N]);
}
```
This is done because discussion at #90091 and its implementation PR indicate a strong preference for nonpanicking APIs that return `Option`. The only difference between functions under the `split_array` and `slice_first_last_chunk` features is `Option` vs. panic, so remove the duplicates as part of this stabilization.
This does not affect the array methods from `split_array`. We will want to revisit these once `generic_const_exprs` is further along.
## Reverse order of return tuple for `split_last_chunk{,_mut}`
An unresolved question for #111774 is whether to return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` (`(&[T], &[T; N])`) or the reverse (`(&[T; N], &[T])`), from `split_last_chunk` and `split_last_chunk_mut`. It is currently implemented as `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)` which matches `split_last -> (&T, &[T])`. The first commit changes these to `(&[T], &[T; N])` for these reasons:
- More consistent with other splitting methods that return multiple values: `str::rsplit_once`, `slice::split_at{,_mut}`, `slice::align_to` all return tuples with the items in order
- More intuitive (arguably opinion, but it is consistent with other language elements like pattern matching `let [a, b, rest @ ..] ...`
- If we ever added a varidic way to obtain multiple chunks, it would likely return something in order: `.split_many_last::<(2, 4)>() -> (&[T], &[T; 2], &[T; 4])`
- It is the ordering used in the `rsplit_array` methods
I think the inconsistency with `split_last` could be acceptable in this case, since for `split_last` the scalar `&T` doesn't have any internal order to maintain with the other items.
## Unresolved questions
Do we want to reserve the same names on `[u8; N]` to avoid inference confusion? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117561#issuecomment-1793388647
---
`slice_first_last_chunk` has only been around since early 2023, but `split_array` has been around since 2021.
`@rustbot` label -T-libs +T-libs-api -T-libs +needs-fcp
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval,` `@scottmcm` who raised this topic, `@clarfonthey` implementer of `slice_first_last_chunk` `@jethrogb` implementer of `split_array`
Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Stabilizing.20array-from-slice.20*something*.3FFixes: #111774
Update `fn()` trait implementation docs
Fixes#119903
This was FCP'd and approved for the 1.70.0 release, this is just a docs update to match that change.
Docs: Use non-SeqCst in module example of atomics
I done this for this reasons:
1. The example now shows that there is more Orderings than just SeqCst.
2. People who would copy from example would now have more suitable orderings for the job.
3. SeqCst is both much harder to reason about and not needed in most situations.
IMHO, we should encourage people to think and use memory orderings that is suitable to task instead of blindly defaulting to SeqCst.
r? `@m-ou-se`
Consolidate all associated items on the NonZero integer types into a single impl block per type
**Before:**
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start(1)]
pub struct NonZeroI8(i8);
impl NonZeroI8 {
pub const fn new(n: i8) -> Option<Self> ...
pub const fn get(self) -> i8 ...
}
impl NonZeroI8 {
pub const fn leading_zeros(self) -> u32 ...
pub const fn trailing_zeros(self) -> u32 ...
}
impl NonZeroI8 {
pub const fn abs(self) -> NonZeroI8 ...
}
...
```
**After:**
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start(1)]
pub struct NonZeroI8(i8);
impl NonZeroI8 {
pub const fn new(n: i8) -> Option<Self> ...
pub const fn get(self) -> i8 ...
pub const fn leading_zeros(self) -> u32 ...
pub const fn trailing_zeros(self) -> u32 ...
pub const fn abs(self) -> NonZeroI8 ...
...
}
```
Having 6-7 different impl blocks per type is not such a problem in today's implementation, but becomes awful upon the switch to a generic `NonZero<T>` type (context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82363#issuecomment-921513910).
In the implementation from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100428, there end up being **67** impl blocks on that type.
<img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/1940490/5b68bd6f-8a36-4922-baa3-348e30dbfcc1" width="200"><img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/1940490/2cfec71e-c2cd-4361-a542-487f13f435d9" width="200"><img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/1940490/2fe00337-7307-405d-9036-6fe1e58b2627" width="200">
Without the refactor to a single impl block first, introducing `NonZero<T>` would be a usability regression compared to today's separate pages per type. With all those blocks expanded, Ctrl+F is obnoxious because you need to skip 12× past every match you don't care about. With all the blocks collapsed, Ctrl+F is useless. Getting to a state in which exactly one type's (e.g. `NonZero<u32>`) impl blocks are expanded while the rest are collapsed is annoying.
After this refactor to a single impl block, we can move forward with making `NonZero<T>` a generic struct whose docs all go on the same rustdoc page. The rustdoc will have 12 impl blocks, one per choice of `T` supported by the standard library. The reader can expand a single one of those impl blocks e.g. `NonZero<u32>` to understand the entire API of that type.
Note that moving the API into a generic `impl<T> NonZero<T> { ... }` is not going to be an option until after `NonZero<T>` has been stabilized, which may be months or years after its introduction. During the period while generic `NonZero` is unstable, it will be extra important to offer good documentation on all methods demonstrating the API being used through the stable aliases such as `NonZeroI8`.
This PR follows a `key = $value` syntax for the macros which is similar to the macros we already use for producing a single large impl block on the integer primitives.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1dd4db50620fb38a6382c22456a96ed7cddeff83/library/core/src/num/mod.rs#L288-L309
Best reviewed one commit at a time.
The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a
variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common
thing to want to do with a noop waker.
If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the
reverse is harder. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like
`futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but
that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas
having the `&'static` reference available is a large benefit.
Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286#issuecomment-1862159766
Add private `NonZero<T>` type alias.
According to step 2 suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100428#pullrequestreview-1767139731.
This adds a private type alias for `NonZero<T>` so that some parts of the code can already start using `NonZero<T>` syntax.
Using `NonZero<T>` for `convert` and other parts which implement `From` doesn't work while it is a type alias, since this results in conflicting implementations.
Tune the inlinability of `unwrap`
Fixes#115463
cc `@thomcc`
This tweaks `unwrap` on ~~`Option` &~~ `Result` to be two parts:
- `#[inline(always)]` for checking the discriminant
- `#[cold]` for actually panicking
The idea here is that checking the discriminant on a `Result` ~~or `Option`~~ should always be trivial enough to be worth inlining, even in `opt-level=z`, especially compared to passing it to a function.
As seen in the issue and codegen test, this will hopefully help particularly for things like `.try_into().unwrap()`s that are actually infallible, but in a way that's only visible with the inlining.
EDIT: I've restricted this to `Result` to avoid combining effects
Later in this stack, as the nonzero_integers macro is going to be
responsible for producing a larger fraction of the API for the NonZero
integer types, it will need to receive a number of additional arguments
beyond the ones currently seen here.
Additional arguments, especially named arguments across multiple lines,
will turn out clearer if everything in one macro call is for the same
NonZero type.
This commit adopts a similar arrangement to what we do for generating
the API of the integer primitives (`impl u8` etc), which also generate a
single type's API per top-level macro call, rather than generating all
12 impl blocks for the 12 types from one macro call.
This way all the other macros defined in this module, such as
nonzero_leading_trailing_zeros, are available to call within the expansion of
nonzero_integers.
(Macros defined by macro_rules cannot be called from the same module above the
location of the macro_rules.)
In this commit the ability to call things like nonzero_leading_trailing_zeros is
not immediately used, but later commits in this stack will be consolidating the
entire API of NonZeroT to be generated through nonzero_integers, and will need
to make use of some of the other macros to do that.
Add Benchmarks for int_pow Methods.
There is quite a bit of room for improvement in performance of the `int_pow` family of methods. I added benchmarks for those functions. In particular, there are benchmarks for small compile-time bases to measure the effect of #114390. ~~I added a lot (245), but all but 22 of them are marked with `#[ignore]`. There are a lot of macros, and I would appreciate feedback on how to simplify them.~~
~~To run benches relevant to #114390, use `./x bench core --stage 1 -- pow_base_const --include-ignored`.~~
This stabilizes all methods under `slice_first_last_chunk`.
Additionally, it const stabilizes the non-mut functions and moves the `_mut`
functions under `const_slice_first_last_chunk`. These are blocked on
`const_mut_refs`.
As part of this change, `slice_split_at_unchecked` was marked const-stable for
internal use (but not fully stable).
Matthias Krüger