| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
A few cosmetic improvements to code & comments in liballoc and libcore
Factored out from hacking on rustc for work on the REPL.
r? @Centril
|
|
documentation for AtomicPtr CAS operations
The examples in the documentation for AtomicPtr CAS operations only show code that does *not* perform the CAS operation. I suggest to change them so that they actually do exchange the AtomicPtr's value.
|
|
Make `abs`, `wrapping_abs`, `overflowing_abs` const functions
This makes `abs`, `wrapping_abs` and `overflowing_abs` const functions like #58044 makes `wrapping_neg` and `overflowing_neg` const functions.
`abs` is made const by returning `(self ^ -1) - -1` = `!self + 1` = `-self` for negative numbers and `(self ^ 0) - 0` = `self` for non-negative numbers. The subexpression `self >> ($BITS - 1)` evaluates to `-1` for negative numbers and `0` otherwise. The subtraction overflows when `self` is `min_value()`, as we would be subtracting `max_value() - -1`; this is when `abs` should overflow.
`wrapping_abs` and `overflowing_abs` make use of `wrapping_sub` and `overflowing_sub` instead of the subtraction operator.
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #63468 (Resolve attributes in several places)
- #64121 (Override `StepBy::{try_fold, try_rfold}`)
- #64278 (check git in bootstrap.py)
- #64306 (Fix typo in config.toml.example)
- #64312 (Unify escape usage)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
|
|
Override `StepBy::{try_fold, try_rfold}`
Previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51435
The previous PR was closed in favor of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51601, which was later reverted. I don't think these implementations will make it harder to specialize `StepBy<Range<_>>` later, so we should be able to land this without any consequences.
This should fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57517 – in my benchmarks `iter` and `iter.step_by(1)` now perform equally well, provided internal iteration is used.
|
|
Stabilize `bind_by_move_pattern_guards` in Rust 1.39.0
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15287.
After stabilizing `#![feature(bind_by_move_pattern_guards)]`, you can now use bind-by-move bindings in patterns and take references to those bindings in `if` guards of `match` expressions. For example, the following now becomes legal:
```rust
fn main() {
let array: Box<[u8; 4]> = Box::new([1, 2, 3, 4]);
match array {
nums
// ---- `nums` is bound by move.
if nums.iter().sum::<u8>() == 10
// ^------ `.iter()` implicitly takes a reference to `nums`.
=> {
drop(nums);
// --------- Legal as `nums` was bound by move and so we have ownership.
}
_ => unreachable!(),
}
}
```
r? @matthewjasper
|
|
Add Iterator comparison methods that take a comparison function
This PR adds `Iterator::{cmp_by, partial_cmp_by, eq_by, ne_by, lt_by, le_by, gt_by, ge_by}`. We already have `Iterator::{cmp, partial_cmp, ...}` which are less general (but not any simpler) than the ones I'm proposing here.
I'm submitting this PR now because #61505 has been merged, so this change should not have a noticeable effect on the `Iterator` docs page size.
The diff is quite messy, here's what I changed:
- The logic of `cmp` / `partial_cmp` / `eq` is moved to `cmp_by` / `partial_cmp_by` / `eq_by` respectively, changing `x.cmp(&y)` to `cmp(&x, &y)` in the `cmp` method where `cmp` is the given comparison function (and similar for `partial_cmp_by` and `eq_by`).
- `ne_by` / `lt_by` / `le_by` / `gt_by` / `ge_by` are each implemented in terms of one of the three methods above.
- The existing comparison methods are each forwarded to their `_by` counterpart, passing one of `Ord::cmp` / `PartialOrd::partial_cmp` / `PartialEq::eq` as the comparison function.
The corresponding `_by_key` methods aren't included because they're not as fundamental as the `_by` methods and can easily be implemented in terms of them. Is that reasonable, or would adding the `_by_key` methods be desirable for the sake of completeness?
I didn't add any tests – I couldn't think of any that weren't already covered by our existing tests. Let me know if there's a particular test that would be useful to add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add methods for converting `bool` to `Option<T>`
This provides a reference implementation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2757.
|
|
Use it for feature-gating `#[bench]`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's more pythonic to use 'is not None' in python files
|
|
Add missing examples for Option type
cc @rust-lang/docs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add missing code examples on Iterator trait
Fixes #63865
cc @rust-lang/docs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use unicode-xid crate instead of libcore
This PR proposes to remove `char::is_xid_start` and `char::is_xid_continue` functions from `libcore` and use `unicode_xid` crate from crates.io (note that this crate is already present in rust-lang/rust's Cargo.lock).
Reasons to do this:
* removing rustc-binary-specific stuff from libcore
* making sure that, across the ecosystem, there's a single definition of what rust identifier is (`unicode-xid` has almost 10 million downs, as a `proc_macro2` dependency)
* making it easier to share `rustc_lexer` crate with rust-analyzer: no need to `#[cfg]` if we are building as a part of the compiler
Reasons not to do this:
* increased maintenance burden: we'll need to upgrade unicode version both in libcore and in unicode-xid. However, this shouldn't be a too heavy burden: just running `./unicode.py` after new unicode version. I (@matklad) am ready to be a t-compiler side maintainer of unicode-xid. Moreover, given that xid-unicode is an important dependency of syn, *someone* needs to maintain it anyway.
* xid-unicode implementation is significantly slower. It uses a more compact table with binary search, instead of a trie. However, this shouldn't matter in practice, because we have fast-path for ascii anyway, and code size savings is a plus. Moreover, in #59706 not using libcore turned out to be *faster*, presumably beacause checking for whitespace with match is even faster.
<details>
<summary>old description</summary>
Followup to #59706
r? @eddyb
Note that this doesn't actually remove tables from libcore, to avoid conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62641.
cc https://github.com/unicode-rs/unicode-xid/pull/11
</details>
|
|
Fix doc links in `std::cmp` module
r? @jonas-schievink
|
|
Stabilize pin_into_inner in 1.39.0
FCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60245#issuecomment-522258129
Closes #60245
|
|
Rev::rposition counts from the wrong end
Introduced in #43074.
cc @SimonSapin
|
|
These links are rendered in `core::cmp` but not in `std::cmp`.
|
|
|
|
They are only used by rustc_lexer, and are not needed elsewhere.
So we move the relevant definitions into rustc_lexer (while the actual
unicode data comes from the unicode-xid crate) and make the rest of
the compiler use it.
|
|
Add Result::cloned{,_err} and Result::copied{,_err}
This is a little nice addition to `Result`.
1. I'm not sure how useful are `cloned_err` and `copied_err`, but for the sake of completeness they are here.
2. Naming is similar to `map`/`map_err`. I thought about naming `cloned` as `cloned_ok` and add another method called `cloned` that clones both Ok and Err, but `cloned_ok` should be more prevalent than `cloned_both`.
|
|
Test that Wrapping arithmetic ops are implemented for all int types
Closes #49660
|
|
Fixes a few repetitions of "like like" in the `trim*` methods documentation of `str`.
|
|
Add missing links on AsRef trait
cc @rust-lang/docs
|
|
Because of a compiler bug that adding `Self: ExactSizeIterator` makes
the compiler forget `Self::Item` is `<I as Iterator>::Item`, we remove
this specialization for now.
|
|
|
|
This allows lints and other diagnostics to refer to items
by a unique ID instead of relying on whacky path
resolution schemes that may break when items are
relocated.
|
|
|
|
Small improvement for Ord implementation of integers
Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/tuTDOg
### Before
**asm**
```asm
example::cmp:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi]
xor ecx, ecx
cmp eax, dword ptr [rsi]
seta cl
mov eax, 255
cmovae eax, ecx
ret
```
**llvm-mca**
```
Iterations: 100
Instructions: 700
Total Cycles: 217
Total uOps: 1100
Dispatch Width: 6
uOps Per Cycle: 5.07
IPC: 3.23
Block RThroughput: 1.8
```
### After
**asm**
```asm
example::cmp:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi]
xor ecx, ecx
cmp eax, dword ptr [rsi]
setne cl
mov eax, 255
cmovae eax, ecx
ret
```
**llvm-mca**
```
Iterations: 100
Instructions: 700
Total Cycles: 209
Total uOps: 1000
Dispatch Width: 6
uOps Per Cycle: 4.78
IPC: 3.35
Block RThroughput: 1.7
```
r? @nagisa
|
|
|
|
FCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60245#issuecomment-522258129
Closes #60245
|
|
|
|
Removed a confusing FnOnce example
# Description
See #47091 for a discussion.
## Changes
- Removed an example that might suggest readers that square_x is (only) FnOnce.
closes #47091
|
|
Improve the documentation for std::hint::black_box.
The other day a colleague was reviewing some of my code which was using `black_box` to block constant propogation. There was a little confusion because the documentation kind of implies that `black_box` is only useful for dead code elimination, and only in benchmarking scenarios.
The docs currently say:
> A function that is opaque to the optimizer, to allow benchmarks to pretend to use outputs to assist in avoiding dead-code elimination.
Here is our discussion, in which I show (using godbolt) that a black box can also block constant propagation:
https://github.com/softdevteam/yk/pull/21#discussion_r302985038
This change makes the docstring for `black_box` a little more general, and while we are here, I've added an example (the same one from our discussion).
OK to go in?
|
|
|
|
Audit uses of `apply_mark` in built-in macros + Remove default macro transparencies
Every use of `apply_mark` in a built-in or procedural macro is supposed to look like this
```rust
location.with_ctxt(SyntaxContext::root().apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id))
```
where `SyntaxContext::root()` means that the built-in/procedural macro is defined directly, rather than expanded from some other macro.
However, few people understood what `apply_mark` does, so we had a lot of copy-pasted uses of it looking e.g. like
```rust
span = span.apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id);
```
, which doesn't really make sense for procedural macros, but at the same time is not too harmful, if the macros use the traditional `macro_rules` hygiene.
So, to fight this, we stop using `apply_mark` directly in built-in macro implementations, and follow the example of regular proc macros instead and use analogues of `Span::def_site()` and `Span::call_site()`, which are much more intuitive and less error-prone.
- `ecx.with_def_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a def-site context.
- `ecx.with_call_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a call-site context.
Even if called multiple times (which sometimes happens due to some historical messiness of the built-in macro code) these functions will produce the same result, unlike `apply_mark` which will grow the mark chain further in this case.
---
After `apply_mark`s in built-in macros are eliminated, the remaining `apply_mark`s are very few in number, so we can start passing the previously implicit `Transparency` argument to them explicitly, thus eliminating the need in `default_transparency` fields in hygiene structures and `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations on built-in macros.
So, the task of making built-in macros opaque can now be formulated as "eliminate `with_legacy_ctxt` in favor of `with_def_site_ctxt`" rather than "replace `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "semitransparent"]` with `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "opaque"]`".
r? @matthewjasper
|
|
|
|
|
|
A bunch of minor documentation tweaks and fixes.
|
|
All transparancies are passed explicitly now.
Also remove `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations from built-in macros, they are no longer used.
`#[rustc_macro_transparency]` only makes sense for declarative macros now.
|
