| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove useless `'static` bounds on `Box` allocator
#79327 added `'static` bounds to the allocator parameter for various `Box` + `Pin` APIs to ensure soundness. But it was a bit overzealous, some of the bounds aren't actually needed.
|
|
|
|
`std::error::Error` -> Trait Implementations: lifetimes consistency improvement
This cleans up `std::error::Error` trait implementations lifetime inconsistency (`'static` -> `'a`)
**Reasoning:**
Trait implementations for `std::error::Error`, like:
`impl From<&str> for Box<dyn Error + 'static, Global>`
`impl<'a> From<&str> for Box<dyn Error + Sync + Send + 'a, Global>`
use different lifetime annotations misleadingly implying using different life annotations here is a conscious, nonaccidental decision.
[(Related forum discussion here)](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/confusing-std-error-source-code/97011/5?u=wiktor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79327 added `'static` bounds to the allocator parameter
for various `Box` + `Pin` APIs to ensure soundness.
But it was a bit overzealous, some of the bounds aren't
actually needed.
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Bugen Zhao <i@bugenzhao.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: David Tolnay <dtolnay@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix `unused_must_use` warning for `Box::from_raw`
|
|
Issue #27732 was closed as a duplicate of #18598.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
|
|
Make the Box one-liner more descriptive
I would like to avoid a definition that relies on itself.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add `Box<[T; N]>: TryFrom<Vec<T>>`
We have `[T; N]: TryFrom<Vec<T>>` (#76310) and `Box<[T; N]>: TryFrom<Box<[T]>>`, but not this combination.
`vec.into_boxed_slice().try_into()` isn't quite a replacement for this, as that'll reallocate unnecessarily in the error case.
**Insta-stable, so needs an FCP**
(I tried to make this work with `, A`, but that's disallowed because of `#[fundamental]` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29635#issuecomment-1247598385)
|
|
|
|
We have `[T; N]: TryFrom<Vec<T>>` and `Box<[T; N]>: TryFrom<Box<[T]>>`, but not the combination.
`vec.into_boxed_slice().try_into()` isn't quite a replacement for this, as that'll reallocate unnecessarily in the error case.
**Insta-stable, so needs an FCP**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Box::from(slice): Clarify that contents are copied
A colleague mentioned that they interpreted the old text
as saying that only the pointer and the length are copied.
Add a clause so it is more clear that the pointed to contents
are also copied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A colleague mentioned that they interpreted the old text
as saying that only the pointer and the length are copied.
Add a clause so it is more clear that the pointed to contents
are also copied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improve documentation for constructors of pinned `Box`es
Adds a cross-references between `Box::pin` and `Box::into_pin` (and other related methods, i.e. the equivalent `From` implementation, and the unstable `pin_in` method), in particular now that `into_pin` [was stabilized](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97397). The main goal is to further improve visibility of the fact that `Box<T> -> Pin<Box<T>>` conversion exits in the first place, and that `Box::pin(x)` is – essentially – just a convenience function for `Box::into_pin(Box::new(x))`
The motivating context why I think this is important is even experienced Rust users overlooking the existence this kind of conversion, [e.g. in this thread on IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-function-variants/16732/7?u=steffahn); and also the fact that that discussion brought up that there would be a bunch of Box-construction methods "missing" such as e.g. methods with fallible allocation a la "`Box::try_pin`", and similar; while those are in fact *not* necessary, because you can use `Box::into_pin(Box::try_new(x)?)` instead.
I have *not* included explicit mention of methods (e.g. `try_new`) in the docs of stable methods (e.g. `into_pin`). (Referring to unstable API in stable API docs would be bad style IMO.) Stable examples I have in mind with the statement "constructing a (pinned) Box in a different way than with `Box::new`" are things like cloning a `Box`, or `Box::from_raw`. If/when `try_new` would get stabilized, it would become a very good concrete example use-case of `Box::into_pin` IMO.
|
|
|
|
Add #[rustc_box] and use it inside alloc
This commit adds an alternative content boxing syntax, and uses it inside alloc.
```Rust
#![feature(box_syntax)]
fn foo() {
let foo = box bar;
}
```
is equivalent to
```Rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
fn foo() {
let foo = #[rustc_box] Box::new(bar);
}
```
The usage inside the very performance relevant code in
liballoc is the only remaining relevant usage of box syntax
in the compiler (outside of tests, which are comparatively easy to port).
box syntax was originally designed to be used by all Rust
developers. This introduces a replacement syntax more tailored
to only being used inside the Rust compiler, and with it,
lays the groundwork for eventually removing box syntax.
[Earlier work](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87781#issuecomment-894714878) by `@nbdd0121` to lower `Box::new` to `box` during THIR -> MIR building ran into borrow checker problems, requiring the lowering to be adjusted in a way that led to [performance regressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87781#issuecomment-894872367). The proposed change in this PR lowers `#[rustc_box] Box::new` -> `box` in the AST -> HIR lowering step, which is way earlier in the compiler, and thus should cause less issues both performance wise as well as regarding type inference/borrow checking/etc. Hopefully, future work can move the lowering further back in the compiler, as long as there are no performance regressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
