Because after PR 86041, the optimizer no longer load-merges at the LLVM IR level, which might be part of the perf loss. (I'll run perf and see if this makes a difference.)
Also I added a codegen test so this hopefully won't regress in future -- it passes on stable and with my change here, but not on the 2021-11-09 nightly.
Add features gates for experimental asm features
This PR splits off parts of `asm!` into separate features because they are not ready for stabilization.
Specifically this adds:
- `asm_const` for `const` operands.
- `asm_sym` for `sym` operands.
- `asm_experimental_arch` for architectures other than x86, x86_64, arm, aarch64 and riscv.
r? `@nagisa`
Add #[must_use] to remaining core functions
I've run out of compelling reasons to group functions together across crates so I'm just going to go module-by-module. This is everything remaining from the `core` crate.
Ignored by clippy for reasons unknown:
```rust
core::alloc::Layout unsafe fn for_value_raw<T: ?Sized>(t: *const T) -> Self;
core::any const fn type_name_of_val<T: ?Sized>(_val: &T) -> &'static str;
```
Ignored by clippy because of `mut`:
```rust
str fn split_at_mut(&mut self, mid: usize) -> (&mut str, &mut str);
```
<del>
Ignored by clippy presumably because a caller might want `f` called for side effects. That seems like a bad usage of `map` to me.
```rust
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map<U: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> Ref<'b, T>;
core::cell::Ref<'b, T> fn map_split<U: ?Sized, V: ?Sized, F>(orig: Ref<'b, T>, f: F) -> (Ref<'b, U>, Ref<'b, V>);
```
</del>
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
Add #[must_use] to mem/ptr functions
There's a lot of low-level / unsafe stuff here. Are there legit use cases for ignoring any of these return values?
* No regressions in `./x.py test --stage 1 library/std src/tools/clippy`.
* One regression in `./x.py test --stage 1 src/test/ui`. Fixed.
* I am unable to run `./x.py doc` on my machine so I'll need to wait for the CI to verify doctests pass. I eyeballed all the adjacent tests and they all look okay.
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
Add #[must_use] to expensive computations
The unifying theme for this commit is weak, admittedly. I put together a list of "expensive" functions when I originally proposed this whole effort, but nobody's cared about that criterion. Still, it's a decent way to bite off a not-too-big chunk of work.
Given the grab bag nature of this commit, the messages I used vary quite a bit. I'm open to wording changes.
For some reason clippy flagged four `BTreeSet` methods but didn't say boo about equivalent ones on `HashSet`. I stared at them for a while but I can't figure out the difference so I added the `HashSet` ones in.
```rust
// Flagged by clippy.
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Difference<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T>
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Intersection<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Union<'a, T>;
// Ignored by clippy, but not by me.
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Difference<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T, S>
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Intersection<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Union<'a, T, S>;
```
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
track_caller for slice length assertions
`clone_from_slice` was missing `#[track_caller]`, and its assert did not report a useful location.
These are small generic methods, so hopefully track_caller gets inlined into nothingness, but it may be worth running a benchmark on this.
Make `core::slice::from_raw_parts[_mut]` const
Responses to #90012 seem to allow ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`` to decide on use of `const_eval_select`, so we can make `core::slice::from_raw_parts[_mut]` const :)
---
This PR marks the following APIs as const:
```rust
// core::slice
pub const unsafe fn from_raw_parts<'a, T>(data: *const T, len: usize) -> &'a [T];
pub const unsafe fn from_raw_parts_mut<'a, T>(data: *mut T, len: usize) -> &'a mut [T];
```
---
Resolves#90011
r? ``@oli-obk``
Make most std::ops traits const on numeric types
This PR makes existing implementations of `std::ops` traits (`Add`, `Sub`, etc) [`impl const`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67792) where possible.
This affects:
- All numeric primitives (`u*`, `i*`, `f*`)
- `NonZero*`
- `Wrapping`
This is under the `rustc_const_unstable` feature `const_ops`.
I will write tests once I know what can and can't be kept for the final version of this PR.
Since this is my first PR to rustc (and hopefully one of many), please give me feedback on how to better handle the PR process wherever possible. Thanks
[Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Const.20std.3A.3Aops.20traits.20PR)
Replace some operators in libcore with their short-circuiting equivalents
In libcore there are a few occurrences of bitwise operators used in boolean expressions instead of their short-circuiting equivalents. This makes it harder to perform some kinds of source code analysis over libcore, for example [MC/DC] code coverage (a requirement in safety-critical environments).
This PR aims to remove as many bitwise operators in boolean expressions from libcore as possible, without any performance regression and without other changes. This means not all bitwise operators are removed, only the ones that don't have any difference with their short-circuiting counterparts. This already simplifies achieving MC/DC coverage, and the other functions can be changed in future PRs.
The PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit, and each commit has the resulting assembly in the message.
## Checked integer methods
These methods recently switched to bitwise operators in PRs https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89459 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89351. I confirmed bitwise operators are needed in most of the functions, except these two:
* `{integer}::checked_div` ([Godbolt link (nightly)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/17efh5jPc))
* `{integer}::checked_rem` ([Godbolt link (nightly)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/85qGWc94K))
`@tspiteri` already mentioned this was the case in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89459#issuecomment-932728384, but opted to also switch those two to bitwise operators for consistency. As that makes MC/DC analysis harder this PR proposes switching those two back to short-circuiting operators.
## `{unsigned_ints}::carrying_add`
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/vG9vx8x48)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces the exact same assembly when optimizations are enabled, so switching to the short-circuiting operator shouldn't have any impact.
## `{unsigned_ints}::borrowing_sub`
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/asEfKaGE4)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces the exact same assembly when optimizations are enabled, so switching to the short-circuiting operator shouldn't have any impact.
## String UTF-8 validation
[Godbolt link (1.56.0)](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/a4rEbTvvx)
In this instance replacing the `|` with `||` produces practically the same assembly, with the two operands for the "or" swapped:
```asm
; Old
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
test rax, r9
je .LBB0_7
; New
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
test rax, r8
je .LBB0_7
```
[MC/DC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_condition/decision_coverage
Remove extra lines in examples for `Duration::try_from_secs_*`
None of the other examples have extra lines below the `#![feature(...)]` statements, so I thought it appropriate that these examples shouldn't either.
Clean up special function const checks
Mark them as const and `#[rustc_do_not_const_check]` instead of hard-coding them in const-eval checks.
r? `@oli-obk`
`@rustbot` label A-const-eval T-compiler
Using short-circuit operators makes it easier to perform some kinds of
source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
xor eax, eax
test esi, esi
je .LBB0_1
cmp edi, -2147483648
jne .LBB0_4
cmp esi, -1
jne .LBB0_4
ret
.LBB0_1:
ret
.LBB0_4:
mov eax, edi
cdq
idiv esi
mov eax, 1
ret
```
Using short-circuit operators makes it easier to perform some kinds of
source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
xor eax, eax
test esi, esi
je .LBB0_1
cmp edi, -2147483648
jne .LBB0_4
cmp esi, -1
jne .LBB0_4
ret
.LBB0_1:
ret
.LBB0_4:
mov eax, edi
cdq
idiv esi
mov edx, eax
mov eax, 1
ret
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is
equivalent between the old and new versions.
Old assembly of that condition:
```
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
test rax, r9
je .LBB0_7
```
New assembly of that condition:
```
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx]
or rax, qword ptr [rdi + rdx + 8]
test rax, r8
je .LBB0_7
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
mov eax, edi
add dl, -1
sbb eax, esi
setb dl
ret
```
Using short-circuiting operators makes it easier to perform some kinds
of source code analysis, like MC/DC code coverage (a requirement in
safety-critical environments). The optimized x86_64 assembly is the same
between the old and new versions:
```
mov eax, edi
add dl, -1
adc eax, esi
setb dl
ret
```
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
