Make `Hash`, `Hasher` and `BuildHasher` `#[const_trait]` and make `Sip` const `Hasher`
This PR enables using Hashes in const context.
r? ``@fee1-dead``
Add support for custom mir
This implements rust-lang/compiler-team#564 . Details about the design, motivation, etc. can be found in there.
r? ```@oli-obk```
Add context to compiler error message
Changed `creates a temporary which is freed while still in use` to `creates a temporary value which is freed while still in use`.
Const Compare for Tuples
Makes the impls for Tuples of ~const `PartialEq` types also `PartialEq`, impls for Tuples of ~const `PartialOrd` types also `PartialOrd`, for Tuples of ~const `Ord` types also `Ord`.
behind the `#![feature(const_cmp)]` gate.
~~Do not merge before #104113 is merged because I want to use this feature to clean up the new test that I added there.~~
r? ``@fee1-dead``
Fix `const_fn_trait_ref_impl`, add test for it
#99943 broke `#[feature(const_fn_trait_ref_impl)]`, this PR fixes this and adds a test for it.
r? ````@fee1-dead````
The type is unsafe and now exposed to the whole crate.
Document it properly and add an unsafe method so the
caller can make it visible that something unsafe is happening.
Implement `std::marker::Tuple`, use it in `extern "rust-call"` and `Fn`-family traits
Implements rust-lang/compiler-team#537
I made a few opinionated decisions in this implementation, specifically:
1. Enforcing `extern "rust-call"` on fn items during wfcheck,
2. Enforcing this for all functions (not just ones that have bodies),
3. Gating this `Tuple` marker trait behind its own feature, instead of grouping it into (e.g.) `unboxed_closures`.
Still needing to be done:
1. Enforce that `extern "rust-call"` `fn`-ptrs are well-formed only if they have 1/2 args and the second one implements `Tuple`. (Doing this would fix ICE in #66696.)
2. Deny all explicit/user `impl`s of the `Tuple` trait, kinda like `Sized`.
3. Fixing `Tuple` trait built-in impl for chalk, so that chalkification tests are un-broken.
Open questions:
1. Does this need t-lang or t-libs signoff?
Fixes#99820
fix a comment in UnsafeCell::new
There are several safe methods that access the inner value: `into_inner` has existed since forever and `get_mut` also exists since recently. So this comment seems just wrong. But `&self` methods return raw pointers and thus require unsafe code (though the methods themselves are still safe).
The new implementation doesn't use weak lang items and instead changes
`#[alloc_error_handler]` to an attribute macro just like
`#[global_allocator]`.
The attribute will generate the `__rg_oom` function which is called by
the compiler-generated `__rust_alloc_error_handler`. If no `__rg_oom`
function is defined in any crate then the compiler shim will call
`__rdl_oom` in the alloc crate which will simply panic.
This also fixes link errors with `-C link-dead-code` with
`default_alloc_error_handler`: `__rg_oom` was previously defined in the
alloc crate and would attempt to reference the `oom` lang item, even if
it didn't exist. This worked as long as `__rg_oom` was excluded from
linking since it was not called.
This is a prerequisite for the stabilization of
`default_alloc_error_handler` (#102318).
poll_fn and Unpin: fix pinning
See [IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/surprising-soundness-trouble-around-pollfn/17484) for details: currently `poll_fn` is very subtle to use, since it does not pin the closure, so creating a `Pin::get_unchcked(&mut capture)` inside the closure is unsound. This leads to actual miscompilations with `futures::join!`.
IMO the proper fix is to pin the closure when the future is pinned, which is achieved by changing the `Unpin` implementation. This is a breaking change though. 1.64.0 was *just* released, so maybe this is still okay?
The alternative would be to add some strong comments to the docs saying that closure captures are *not pinned* and doing `Pin::get_unchecked` on them is unsound.
Clarify documentation about the memory layout of `UnsafeCell`
This PR addresses a [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101717#issuecomment-1279908390) by `@RalfJung` in PR #101717 to further clarify the documentation of `UnsafeCell<T>`. The previous PR was merged already before we had a chance to correct this, hence this second PR :)
To goal of this PR is:
1. Split the paragraph about the memory layout of `UnsafeCell<T>` and the usage of `UnsafeCell::(raw_)get()` into two paragraphs, so that it is easier to digest for the reader.
2. Slightly simplify the previously added examples in order to reduce redundancy between the new examples and the examples that already [existed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/ddd119b2fed57eb6b19c44c18108de95c564a48d/library/core/src/cell.rs#L1858-L1908) before these 2 PRs (which remained untouched by both PRs).
Manish Goregaokar