doc(array,vec): add notes about side effects when empty-initializing
Copying some context from a conversation in the Rust discord:
* Both `vec![T; 0]` and `[T; 0]` are syntactically valid, and produce empty containers of their respective types
* Both *also* have side effects:
```rust
fn side_effect() -> String {
println!("side effect!");
"foo".into()
}
fn main() {
println!("before!");
let x = vec![side_effect(); 0];
let y = [side_effect(); 0];
println!("{:?}, {:?}", x, y);
}
```
produces:
```
before!
side effect!
side effect!
[], []
```
This PR just adds two small notes to each's documentation, warning users that side effects can occur.
I've also submitted a clippy proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6439
BTreeMap: clarify comments and panics around choose_parent_kv
Fixes a lie in recent code: `unreachable!("empty non-root node")` should shout "empty internal node", but it might as well be good and keep quiet
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Clarify that String::split_at takes a byte index.
To someone skimming through the `String` docs and only reads the first line, the person could interpret "index" to be "char index". Later on in the docs it clarifies, but by adding "byte" it removes that ambiguity.
Privatize some of libcore unicode_internals
My understanding is that these API are perma unstable, so it doesn't
make sense to pollute docs & IDE completion[1] with them.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/6738
BTreeMap: try to enhance various comments
All in internal documentation, propagating the "key-value pair" notation from public documentation.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
Require allocator to be static for boxed `Pin`-API
Allocators has to retain their validity until the instance and all of its clones are dropped. When pinning a value, it must live forever, thus, the allocator requires a `'static` lifetime for pinning a value. [Example from reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/jymzdw/the_story_continues_vec_now_supports_custom/gd7qak2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
```rust
let alloc = MyAlloc(/* ... */);
let pinned = Box::pin_in(42, alloc);
mem::forget(pinned); // Now `value` must live forever
// Otherwise `Pin`'s invariants are violated, storage invalidated
// before Drop was called.
// borrow of `memory` can end here, there is no value keeping it.
drop(alloc); // Oh, value doesn't live forever.
```
Rename `optin_builtin_traits` to `auto_traits`
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
r? `@oli-obk` (feel free to re-assign if you're not the right reviewer for this)
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #76829 (stabilize const_int_pow)
- #79080 (MIR visitor: Don't treat debuginfo field access as a use of the struct)
- #79236 (const_generics: assert resolve hack causes an error)
- #79287 (Allow using generic trait methods in `const fn`)
- #79324 (Use Option::and_then instead of open-coding it)
- #79325 (Reduce boilerplate with the `?` operator)
- #79330 (Fix typo in comment)
- #79333 (doc typo)
- #79337 (Use Option::map instead of open coding it)
- #79343 (Add my (`@flip1995)` work mail to the mailmap)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Change slice::to_vec to not use extend_from_slice
I saw this [Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/String.3A.3Afrom%28.26str%29.20wonky.20codegen/near/216164455), and didn't see any update from it, so I thought I'd try to fix it. This converts `to_vec` to no longer use `extend_from_slice`, but relies on knowing that the allocated capacity is the same size as the input.
[Godbolt new v1](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1bcWKG)
[Godbolt new v2 w/ drop guard](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/5jn76K)
[Godbolt old version](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/e4ePav)
After some amount of iteration, there are now two specializations for `to_vec`, one for `Copy` types that use memcpy, and one for clone types which is the original from this PR.
This is then used inside of `impl<T: Clone> FromIterator<Iter::Slice<T>> for Vec<T>` which is essentially equivalent to `&[T] -> Vec<T>`, instead of previous specialization of the `extend` function. This is because extend has to reason more about existing capacity by calling `reserve` on an existing vec, and thus produces worse asm.
Downsides: This allocates the exact capacity, so I think if many items are added to this `Vec` after, it might need to allocate whereas extending may not. I also noticed the number of faults went up in the benchmarks, but not sure where from exactly.
This also required adding a loop guard in case clone panics
Add specialization for copy
There is a better version for copy, so I've added specialization for that function
and hopefully that should speed it up even more.
Switch FromIter<slice::Iter> to use `to_vec`
Test different unrolling version for to_vec
Revert to impl
From benchmarking, it appears this version is faster
BTreeMap: swap the names of NodeRef::new and Root::new_leaf
#78104 preserved the name of Root::new_leaf to minimize changes, but the resulting names are confusing.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
BTreeMap: address namespace conflicts
Fix an annoyance popping up whenever synchronizing the test cases with a version capable of miri-track-raw-pointers.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
More consistently use spaces after commas in lists in docs
This PR changes instances of lists that didn't use spaces after commas, like `vec![1,2,3]`, to `vec![1, 2, 3]` to be more consistent with idiomatic Rust style (the way these were looks strange to me, especially because there are often lists that *do* use spaces after the commas later in the same code block 😬).
I noticed one of these in an example in the stdlib docs and went looking for more, but as far as I can see, I'm only changing those spots in user-facing documentation or rustc output, and the changes make no semantic difference.
clarify rules for ZST Boxes
LLVM's rules around `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 are a bit annoying, and as a consequence we have no choice but say that a `Box<()>` pointing to previously allocated memory that has since been freed is UB. Clarify the docs to reflect this.
This is based on conversations on the LLVM mailing list.
* Here's my initial mail: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130452.html
* The first email of the March part of that thread: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-March/130831.html
* First email of the April part: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-April/131693.html
The conclusion for me at least was that `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 is *not* the identity function, but can sometimes return `poison` even when the input is a regular pointer -- specifically, it returns `poison` when this pointer points into something that LLVM "knows has been deallocated", i.e., a former LLVM-managed allocation. It is however the identity function on pointers obtained by casting integers.
Note that there [are formal proposals](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf) for LLVM semantics where `getelementptr inbounds` with offset 0 isn't quite the identity function but never returns `poison` (it affects the provenance of the pointer but in a way that doesn't matter if this pointer is never used for memory accesses), and indeed this is likely necessary to consistently describe LLVM semantics. But with the informal LLVM LangRef that we have right now, and with LLVM devs insisting otherwise, it seems unwise to rely on this.
Guillaume Gomez