Document that slice refers to any pointer type to a sequence
I was recently confused about the way slices are represented in memory. The necessary information was not available in the std-docs directly, but was a mix of different material from the reference and book.
This PR should clear up the definition of slices a bit more in the documentation. Especially the fact that the term slice refers to the pointer/reference type, e.g. `&[T]`, and not `[T]`.
It also documents that slice pointers are twice the size of pointers to `Sized` types, as this concept may be unfamiliar to users coming from other languages that do not have the concept of "fat pointers" (especially C/C++).
I've documented why this was important to me and my findings in [this blog post](https://codecrash.me/understanding-rust-slices).
r? @lcnr
stabilize ptr_offset_from
This stabilizes ptr::offset_from, and closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079. It also removes the deprecated `wrapping_offset_from`. This function was deprecated 19 days ago and was never stable; given an FCP of 10 days and some waiting time until FCP starts, that leaves at least a month between deprecation and removal which I think is fine for a nightly-only API.
Regarding the open questions in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079:
* Should offset_from abort instead of panic on ZSTs? -- As far as I know, there is no precedent for such aborts. We could, however, declare this UB. Given that the size is always known statically and the check thus rather cheap, UB seems excessive.
* Should there be more methods like this with different restrictions (to allow nuw/nsw, perhaps) or that return usize (like how isize-taking offset is more conveniently done with usize-taking add these days)? -- No reason to block stabilization on that, we can always add such methods later.
Also nominating the lang team because this exposes an intrinsic.
The stabilized method is best described [by its doc-comment](56d4b2d69a/src/libcore/ptr/const_ptr.rs (L227)). The documentation forgot to mention the requirement that both pointers must "have the same provenance", aka "be derived from pointers to the same allocation", which I am adding in this PR. This is a precondition that [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a3b9d0a07a01321f5202cd99e9613480) and that, should LLVM ever obtain a `psub` operation to subtract pointers, will likely be required for that operation (following the semantics in [this paper](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf)).
New zeroed slice
Add to #63291 the methods
```rust
impl<T> Box<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Box<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
impl<T> Rc<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Rc<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
impl<T> Arc<[T]> { pub fn new_zeroed_slice(len: usize) -> Arc<[MaybeUninit<T>]> {…} }
```
as suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63291#issuecomment-605511675 .
Also optimize `{Rc, Arc}::new_zeroed` to use `alloc_zeroed`, otherwise they are no more efficient than using `new_uninit` and zeroing the memory manually (which was the original implementation).
Move to intra-doc links for library/core/src/alloc/{layout, global, mod}.rs
Helps with #75080. The files already contained intra-doc links, so there are only minor changes.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
Known issues:
* [`handle_alloc_error`]: Link from `core` to `alloc` could not be resolved.
* [`slice`]: slice is a primitive type, but could not be resolved; had to use [`crate::slice`] instead.
Move to intra-doc links for /library/core/src/intrinsics.rs
Helps with #75080.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
Known issues:
* The following f32 and f64 primitive methods cannot be resolved:
f32/f64::powi
f32/f64::sqrt
f32/f64::sin
f32/f64::cos
f32/f64::powf
f32/f64::exp
f32/f64::exp2
f32/f64::ln
f32/f64::log2
f32/f64::log10
f32/f64::mul_add
f32/f64::abs
f32/f64::copysign
f32/f64::floor
f32/f64::ceil
f32/f64::trunc
f32/f64::round
* Links from core to std:
[`std::pointer::*`]
[`std::process::abort`]
[`from_raw_parts`]
[`Vec::append`]
* Links with anchors?
I provided a separate commit that replaced links with anchors by intra-doc links.
Here the anchor location information gets lost, so its questionable whether to
actually replace those links.
enable align_to tests in Miri
With https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1074 resolved, we can enable these tests in Miri.
I also tweaked the test sized to get reasonable execution times with decent test coverage.
clarify documentation of remove_dir errors
remove_dir will error if the path doesn't exist or isn't a directory.
It's useful to clarify that this is "remove dir or fail" not "remove dir
if it exists".
I don't think this belongs in the title. "Removes an existing, empty
directory" is strangely worded-- there's no such thing as a non-existing
directory. Better to just say explicitly it will return an error.
Use min_specialization in libcore
Getting `TrustedRandomAccess` to work is the main interesting thing here.
- `get_unchecked` is now an unstable, hidden method on `Iterator`
- The contract for `TrustedRandomAccess` is made clearer in documentation
- Fixed a bug where `Debug` would create aliasing references when using the specialized zip impl
- Added tests for the side effects of `next_back` and `nth`.
closes#68536
Move to intra-doc links for task.rs and vec.rs
Partial fix for #75080
links for [`get`], [`get_mut`] skipped due to #75643
link for [`copy_from_slice`] skipped due to #63351
Remove `#[cfg(miri)]` from OnceCell tests
They were carried over from once_cell crate, but they are not entirely
correct (as miri now supports more things), and we don't run miri
tests for std, so let's just remove them.
Maybe one day we'll run miri in std, but then we can just re-install
these attributes.
Move to intra doc links for std::io
Helps with #75080.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
r? @jyn514
I had no problems with those files so I added some small links here and there.
Improve codegen for `align_offset`
In this PR the `align_offset` implementation is changed/improved to produce better code in certain scenarios such as when pointer type is has a stride of 1 or when building for low optimisation levels.
While these changes do not achieve the "ideal" codegen referenced in #75579, it gets significantly closer to it. I’m not actually sure if the codegen can actually be much better with this function returning the offset, rather than the aligned pointer.
See the descriptions for separate commits for further information.
They were carried over from once_cell crate, but they are not entirely
correct (as miri now supports more things), and we don't run miri
tests for std, so let's just remove them.
Maybe one day we'll run miri in std, but then we can just re-install
these attributes.
Switch to intra-doc links in /src/sys/unix/ext/*.rs
Partial fix for #75080
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links, T-rustdoc
r? @jyn514
These two links are not resolving to either `crate::fs::File...` or `fs::File...`
```
# unix/ext/fs.rs
27: /// [`File::read`]: ../../../../std/fs/struct.File.html#method.read
130: /// [`File::write`]: ../../../../std/fs/struct.File.html#method.write
```
docs(marker/copy): provide example for `&T` being `Copy`
### Edited 2020-08-16 (most recent)
In the current documentation about the `Copy` marker trait, there is a section
with examples of structs that can implement `Copy`. Currently there is no example for
showing that shared references (`&T`) are also `Copy`.
It is worth to have a dedicated example for `&T` being `Copy`, because shared
references are an integral part of the language and it being `Copy` is not as
intuitive as other types that share this behaviour like `i32` or `bool`.
The example picks up on the previous non-`Copy` struct and shows that
structs can be `Copy`, even when they hold a shared reference to a non-`Copy` type.
-----------------------------------------
### Edited 2020-08-02, 3:28 p.m.
I've just realized that it says "in addition to the **implementors listed below**", which makes this PR kind of "wrong", because `&T` is indeed in the "implementors listed below".
Maybe we can instead show an example with `&T` in the [When can my type be Copy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/marker/trait.Copy.html#when-can-my-type-be-copy) section.
What I really want to achieve is that it becomes more obvious that `&T` is also `Copy`, because, I think, it is very valuable to know and it wasn't obvious for me, until I read something about it in a forum post.
What do you think? I would create another PR for that.
**Please feel free to close this PR.**
-----------------------------------
### Original post
In the current documentation about the `Copy` marker trait, there is a section
about "additional implementors", which list additional implementors of the `Copy` trait.
The fact that shared references are also `Copy` is mixed with another point,
which makes it hard to recognize and make it seem not as important.
This clarifies the fact that shared references are also `Copy`, by mentioning it as a
separate item in the list of "additional implementors".
