diff options
| author | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2024-03-29 20:25:08 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2024-03-29 20:25:08 +0000 |
| commit | faae5f1ffe7b7b97e91eee6184807ac7307aafaa (patch) | |
| tree | a05bb2091da1ce88f1e023d0b9c45ac9360729e2 /compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/auto_trait.rs | |
| parent | af4a5a13a15fa0c60e06321077ef452f769b42fd (diff) | |
| parent | 50392ccc5a38f2e4580c67d51836f5add64f7d48 (diff) | |
| download | rust-faae5f1ffe7b7b97e91eee6184807ac7307aafaa.tar.gz rust-faae5f1ffe7b7b97e91eee6184807ac7307aafaa.zip | |
Auto merge of #122520 - scottmcm:stabilize_unchecked_math_basics, r=jhpratt
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/auto_trait.rs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions