`std::alloc` said that the default allocator is unspecified for all
crrate types except `cdylib` and `staticlib`. Adjust
`std::alloc::System` documentation to say the same.
Fixes#125870.
Add the following facts:
* `handle_alloc_error` may panic instead of aborting.
* What happens if a hook returns rather than diverging.
* A hook may panic. (This was already demonstrated in an example,
but not stated in prose.)
* A hook must be sound to call — it cannot assume that it is only
called by the runtime, since its function pointer can be retrieved by
safe code.
Currently, the `SeqCst` ordering is used, which seems unnecessary:
+ Even `Relaxed` ordering guarantees that all updates are atomic and are executed in total order
+ User code only reads atomic for monitoring purposes, no "happens-before" relationships with actual allocations and deallocations are needed for this
If argumentation above is correct, I propose changing ordering to `Relaxed` to clarify that no synchronization is required here, and improve performance (if somebody copy-pastes this example into their code).
Implement -Z oom=panic
This PR removes the `#[rustc_allocator_nounwind]` attribute on `alloc_error_handler` which allows it to unwind with a panic instead of always aborting. This is then used to implement `-Z oom=panic` as per RFC 2116 (tracking issue #43596).
Perf and binary size tests show negligible impact.
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
The size assertion in the comment was inverted compared to the code. After fixing that the implication that `(new_size >= old_size) => new_size != 0` still doesn't hold so explain why `old_size != 0` at this point.
Daniel Paoliello