Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using Fn trait instead of FnMut.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails
to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using
a mutable reference as an input argument.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we
can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
Fix and extent ControlFlow `traverse_inorder` example
1. The existing example compiles on its own, but any usage fails to be monomorphised and so doesn't compile. Fix that by using Fn trait instead of FnMut.
2. Added an example usage of `traverse_inorder` showing how we can terminate the traversal early.
Fixes#90063
Make RSplit<T, P>: Clone not require T: Clone
This addresses a TODO comment. The behavior of `#[derive(Clone)]` *does* result in a `T: Clone` requirement. Playground example:
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a8b1a9581ff8893baf401d624a53d35b
Add a manual `Clone` implementation, mirroring `Split` and `SplitInclusive`.
`(R)?SplitN(Mut)?` don't have any `Clone` implementations, but I'll leave that for its own pull request.
Stabilise unix_process_wait_more, extra ExitStatusExt methods
This stabilises the feature `unix_process_wait_more`. Tracking issue #80695, FCP needed.
This was implemented in #79982 and merged in January.
Implement split_array and split_array_mut
This implements `[T]::split_array::<const N>() -> (&[T; N], &[T])` and `[T; N]::split_array::<const M>() -> (&[T; M], &[T])` and their mutable equivalents. These are another few “missing” array implementations now that const generics are a thing, similar to #74373, #75026, etc. Fixes#74674.
This implements `[T; N]::split_array` returning an array and a slice. Ultimately, this is probably not what we want, we would want the second return value to be an array of length N-M, which will likely be possible with future const generics enhancements. We need to implement the array method now though, to immediately shadow the slice method. This way, when the slice methods get stabilized, calling them on an array will not be automatic through coercion, so we won't have trouble stabilizing the array methods later (cf. into_iter debacle).
An unchecked version of `[T]::split_array` could also be added as in #76014. This would not be needed for `[T; N]::split_array` as that can be compile-time checked. Edit: actually, since split_at_unchecked is internal-only it could be changed to be split_array-only.
Inline CStr::from_ptr
Inlining this function is valuable, as it allows LLVM to apply `strlen`-specific optimizations without having to enable LTO.
For instance, the following function:
```rust
pub fn f(p: *const c_char) -> Option<u8> {
unsafe { CStr::from_ptr(p) }.to_bytes().get(0).copied()
}
```
Looks like this if `CStr::from_ptr` is allowed to be inlined.
```asm
before:
push rax
call qword ptr [rip + std::ffi::c_str::CStr::from_ptr@GOTPCREL]
mov rcx, rax
cmp rdx, 1
sete dl
test rax, rax
sete al
or al, dl
jne .LBB1_2
mov dl, byte ptr [rcx]
.LBB1_2:
xor al, 1
pop rcx
ret
after:
mov dl, byte ptr [rdi]
test dl, dl
setne al
ret
```
Note that optimization turned this from O(N) to O(1) in terms of performance, as LLVM knows that it doesn't really need to call `strlen` to determine whether a string is empty or not.
Stabilize feature `saturating_div` for rust 1.58.0
The tracking issue is #89381
This seems like a reasonable simple change(?). The feature `saturating_div` was added as part of the ongoing effort to implement a `Saturating` integer type (see #87921). The implementation has been discussed [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87921#issuecomment-899357720) and [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87921#discussion_r691888556). It extends the list of saturating operations on integer types (like `saturating_add`, `saturating_sub`, `saturating_mul`, ...) by the function `fn saturating_div(self, rhs: Self) -> Self`.
The stabilization of the feature `saturating_int_impl` (for the `Saturating` type) needs to have this stabilized first.
Closes#89381
This addresses a TODO comment. The behavior of #[derive(Clone)]
*does* result in a T: Clone requirement.
Add a manual Clone implementation, matching Split and SplitInclusive.
Previously, it wasn't clear whether "This could include" was referring
to logic errors, or undefined behaviour. Tweak wording to clarify this
sentence does not relate to UB.
Fix MIRI UB in `Vec::swap_remove`
Fixes#90055
I find it weird that `Vec::swap_remove` read the last element to the stack just to immediately put it back in the `Vec` in place of the one at index `index`. It seems much more natural to me to just read the element at position `index` and then move the last element in its place. I guess this might also slightly improve codegen.
Make `From` impls of NonZero integer const.
I also changed the feature gate added to `From` impls of Atomic integer to `const_num_from_num` from `const_convert`.
Tracking issue: #87852
Avoid overflow in `VecDeque::with_capacity_in()`.
The overflow only happens if alloc is compiled with overflow checks enabled and the passed capacity is greater or equal 2^(usize::BITS-1). The overflow shadows the expected "capacity overflow" panic leading to a test failure if overflow checks are enabled for std in the CI.
Unblocks [CI: Enable overflow checks for test (non-dist) builds #89776](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89776).
For some reason the overflow is only observable with optimization turned off, but that is a separate issue.
Stabilize CString::from_vec_with_nul[_unchecked]
Closes the tracking issue #73179. I am keeping this in _draft_ mode until the FCP has ended.
This is my first time stabilizing a feature, so I would appreciate any guidance on things I should do differently.
Closes#73179
Remove unnecessary condition in Barrier::wait()
This is my first pull request for Rust, so feel free to call me out if anything is amiss.
After some examination, I realized that the second condition of the "spurious-wakeup-handler" loop in ``std::sync::Barrier::wait()`` should always evaluate to ``true``, making it redundant in the ``&&`` expression.
Here is the affected function before the fix:
```rust
#[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
pub fn wait(&self) -> BarrierWaitResult {
let mut lock = self.lock.lock().unwrap();
let local_gen = lock.generation_id;
lock.count += 1;
if lock.count < self.num_threads {
// We need a while loop to guard against spurious wakeups.
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_wakeup
while local_gen == lock.generation_id && lock.count < self.num_threads { // fixme
lock = self.cvar.wait(lock).unwrap();
}
BarrierWaitResult(false)
} else {
lock.count = 0;
lock.generation_id = lock.generation_id.wrapping_add(1);
self.cvar.notify_all();
BarrierWaitResult(true)
}
}
```
At first glance, it seems that the check that ``lock.count < self.num_threads`` would be necessary in order for a thread A to detect when another thread B has caused the barrier to reach its thread count, making thread B the "leader".
However, the control flow implicitly results in an invariant that makes observing ``!(lock.count < self.num_threads)``, i.e. ``lock.count >= self.num_threads`` impossible from thread A.
When thread B, which will be the leader, calls ``.wait()`` on this shared instance of the ``Barrier``, it locks the mutex in the first line and saves the ``MutexGuard`` in the ``lock`` variable. It then increments the value of ``lock.count``. However, it then proceeds to check if ``lock.count < self.num_threads``. Since it is the leader, it is the case that (after the increment of ``lock.count``), the lock count is *equal* to the number of threads. Thus, the second branch is immediately taken and ``lock.count`` is zeroed. Additionally, the generation ID is incremented (with wrap). Then, the condition variable is signalled. But, the other threads are waiting at the line ``lock = self.cvar.wait(lock).unwrap();``, so they cannot resume until thread B's call to ``Barrier::wait()`` returns, which drops the ``MutexGuard`` acquired in the first ``let`` statement and unlocks the mutex.
The order of events is thus:
1. A thread A calls `.wait()`
2. `.wait()` acquires the mutex, increments `lock.count`, and takes the first branch
3. Thread A enters the ``while`` loop since the generation ID has not changed and the count is less than the number of threads for the ``Barrier``
3. Spurious wakeups occur, but both conditions hold, so the thread A waits on the condition variable
4. This process repeats for N - 2 additional times for non-leader threads A'
5. *Meanwhile*, Thread B calls ``Barrier::wait()`` on the same barrier that threads A, A', A'', etc. are waiting on. The thread count reaches the number of threads for the ``Barrier``, so all threads should now proceed, with B being the leader. B acquires the mutex and increments the value ``lock.count`` only to find that it is not less than ``self.num_threads``. Thus, it immediately clamps ``self.num_threads`` back down to 0 and increments the generation. Then, it signals the condvar to tell the A (prime) threads that they may continue.
6. The A, A', A''... threads wake up and attempt to re-acquire the ``lock`` as per the internal operation of a condition variable. When each A has exclusive access to the mutex, it finds that ``lock.generation_id`` no longer matches ``local_generation`` **and the ``&&`` expression short-circuits -- and even if it were to evaluate it, ``self.count`` is definitely less than ``self.num_threads`` because it has been reset to ``0`` by thread B *before* B dropped its ``MutexGuard``**.
Therefore, it my understanding that it would be impossible for the non-leader threads to ever see the second boolean expression evaluate to anything other than ``true``. This PR simply removes that condition.
Any input would be appreciated. Sorry if this is terribly verbose. I'm new to the Rust community and concurrency can be hard to explain in words. Thanks!
Reject octal zeros in IPv4 addresses
This fixes#86964 by rejecting octal zeros in IP addresses, such that `192.168.00.00000000` is rejected with a parse error, since having leading zeros in front of another zero indicates it is a zero written in octal notation, which is not allowed in the strict mode specified by RFC 6943 3.1.1. Octal rejection was implemented in #83652, but due to the way it was implemented octal zeros were still allowed.
Make more `From` impls `const` (libcore)
Adding `const` to `From` implementations in the core. `rustc_const_unstable` attribute is not added to unstable implementations.
Tracking issue: #88674
<details>
<summary>Done</summary><div>
- `T` from `T`
- `T` from `!`
- `Option<T>` from `T`
- `Option<&T>` from `&Option<T>`
- `Option<&mut T>` from `&mut Option<T>`
- `Cell<T>` from `T`
- `RefCell<T>` from `T`
- `UnsafeCell<T>` from `T`
- `OnceCell<T>` from `T`
- `Poll<T>` from `T`
- `u32` from `char`
- `u64` from `char`
- `u128` from `char`
- `char` from `u8`
- `AtomicBool` from `bool`
- `AtomicPtr<T>` from `*mut T`
- `AtomicI(bits)` from `i(bits)`
- `AtomicU(bits)` from `u(bits)`
- `i(bits)` from `NonZeroI(bits)`
- `u(bits)` from `NonZeroU(bits)`
- `NonNull<T>` from `Unique<T>`
- `NonNull<T>` from `&T`
- `NonNull<T>` from `&mut T`
- `Unique<T>` from `&mut T`
- `Infallible` from `!`
- `TryIntError` from `!`
- `TryIntError` from `Infallible`
- `TryFromSliceError` from `Infallible`
- `FromResidual for Option<T>`
</div></details>
<details>
<summary>Remaining</summary><dev>
- `NonZero` from `NonZero`
These can't be made const at this time because these use Into::into.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/convert/num.rs#L393
- `std`, `alloc`
There may still be many implementations that can be made `const`.
</div></details>
remove unnecessary bound on Zip specialization impl
I originally added this bound in an attempt to make the specialization
sound for owning iterators but it was never correct here and the correct
and [already implemented](497ee321af/library/alloc/src/vec/into_iter.rs (L220-L232)) solution is is to place it on the IntoIter
implementation.
Alloc features cleanup
This sorts and categorizes the `#![features]` in `alloc` and removes unused ones.
This is part of #87766
The following feature attributes were unnecessary and are removed:
```diff
// Library features:
-#![feature(cow_is_borrowed)]
-#![feature(maybe_uninit_uninit_array)]
-#![feature(slice_partition_dedup)]
// Language features:
-#![feature(arbitrary_self_types)]
-#![feature(auto_traits)]
-#![feature(box_patterns)]
-#![feature(decl_macro)]
-#![feature(nll)]
```
Automatic exponential formatting in Debug
Context: See [this comment from the libs team](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2729#issuecomment-853454204)
---
Makes `"{:?}"` switch to exponential for floats based on magnitude. The libs team suggested exploring this idea in the discussion thread for RFC rust-lang/rfcs#2729. (**note:** this is **not** an implementation of the RFC; it is an implementation of one of the alternatives)
Thresholds chosen were 1e-4 and 1e16. Justification described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2729#issuecomment-864482954).
**This will require a crater run.**
---
As mentioned in the commit message of 8731d4dfb4, this behavior will not apply when a precision is supplied, because I wanted to preserve the following existing and useful behavior of `{:.PREC?}` (which recursively applies `{:.PREC}` to floats in a struct):
```rust
assert_eq!(
format!("{:.2?}", [100.0, 0.000004]),
"[100.00, 0.00]",
)
```
I looked around and am not sure where there are any tests that actually use this in the test suite, though?
All things considered, I'm surprised that this change did not seem to break even a single existing test in `x.py test --stage 2`. (even when I tried a smaller threshold of 1e6)
