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.
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)
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #89766 (RustWrapper: adapt for an LLVM API change)
- #89867 (Fix macro_rules! duplication when reexported in the same module)
- #89941 (removing TLS support in x86_64-unknown-none-hermitkernel)
- #89956 (Suggest a case insensitive match name regardless of levenshtein distance)
- #89988 (Do not promote values with const drop that need to be dropped)
- #89997 (Add test for issue #84957 - `str.as_bytes()` in a `const` expression)
- #90002 (⬆️ rust-analyzer)
- #90034 (Tiny tweak to Iterator::unzip() doc comment example.)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Revert "Auto merge of #89709 - clemenswasser:apply_clippy_suggestions…
…_2, r=petrochenkov"
The PR had some unforseen perf regressions that are not as easy to find.
Revert the PR for now.
This reverts commit 6ae8912a3e, reversing
changes made to 86d6d2b738.
It's easier to figure out what it's doing and which output
elements map to which input ones if the matrix we are dealing
with is rectangular 2x3 rather than square 2x2.
Remove a mention to `copy_from_slice` from `clone_from_slice` doc
Fixes#84736
I think removing it would be the best but I'm happy to clarify it instead if someone would like.
Add `#[repr(i8)]` to `Ordering`
Followup to #89491 to allow `Ordering` to auto-derive `AsRepr` once the proposal to add `AsRepr` (#81642) lands.
cc ``@joshtriplett``
updating docs to mention usage of AtomicBool
Mouse mentioned we should point out that atomic bool is used by the std lib these days. ( https://github.com/m-ou-se/getrandom/pull/1 )
Stabilize `unreachable_unchecked` as `const fn`
Closes#53188
This PR stabilizes `core::hint::unreachable_unchecked` as `const fn`. MIRI is able to detect when this method is called. Stabilization was delayed until `const_panic` was stabilized so as to avoid users calling this method in its place (thus resulting in runtime UB). With #89508, that is no longer an issue.
````@rustbot```` label +A-const-eval +A-const-fn +T-lang +S-blocked
(not sure why it's T-lang, but that's what the tracking issue is)
The PR had some unforseen perf regressions that are not as easy to find.
Revert the PR for now.
This reverts commit 6ae8912a3e, reversing
changes made to 86d6d2b738.
Add `const_eval_select` intrinsic
Adds an intrinsic that calls a given function when evaluated at compiler time, but generates a call to another function when called at runtime.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/issues/7 for previous discussion.
r? `@oli-obk.`
fix minor spelling error in Poll::ready docs
Fixes minor spelling error in the proposed `Poll::ready` docs. Not that my opinion matters, but +1 on the original PR (#89651), it reads much nicer to me than the `ready!` macro.
Add #[must_use] to non-mutating verb methods
These are methods that could be misconstrued to mutate their input, similar to #89694. I gave each one a different custom message.
I wrote that `upgrade` and `downgrade` don't modify the input pointers. Logically they don't, but technically they do...
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
Add #[must_use] to From::from and Into::into
Risk of churn: **High**
Magic 8-Ball says: **Outlook not so good**
I figured I'd put this out there. If we don't do it now maybe we save it for a rainy day.
Parent issue: #89692
r? `@joshtriplett`
Speedup int log10 branchless
This is achieved with a branchless bit-twiddling implementation of the case x < 100_000, and using this as building block.
Benchmark on an Intel i7-8700K (Coffee Lake):
```
name old ns/iter new ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
num::int_log::u8_log10_predictable 165 169 4 2.42% x 0.98
num::int_log::u8_log10_random 438 423 -15 -3.42% x 1.04
num::int_log::u8_log10_random_small 438 423 -15 -3.42% x 1.04
num::int_log::u16_log10_predictable 633 417 -216 -34.12% x 1.52
num::int_log::u16_log10_random 908 471 -437 -48.13% x 1.93
num::int_log::u16_log10_random_small 945 471 -474 -50.16% x 2.01
num::int_log::u32_log10_predictable 1,496 1,340 -156 -10.43% x 1.12
num::int_log::u32_log10_random 1,076 873 -203 -18.87% x 1.23
num::int_log::u32_log10_random_small 1,145 874 -271 -23.67% x 1.31
num::int_log::u64_log10_predictable 4,005 3,171 -834 -20.82% x 1.26
num::int_log::u64_log10_random 1,247 1,021 -226 -18.12% x 1.22
num::int_log::u64_log10_random_small 1,265 921 -344 -27.19% x 1.37
num::int_log::u128_log10_predictable 39,667 39,579 -88 -0.22% x 1.00
num::int_log::u128_log10_random 6,456 6,696 240 3.72% x 0.96
num::int_log::u128_log10_random_small 4,108 3,903 -205 -4.99% x 1.05
```
Benchmark on an M1 Mac Mini:
```
name old ns/iter new ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
num::int_log::u8_log10_predictable 143 130 -13 -9.09% x 1.10
num::int_log::u8_log10_random 375 325 -50 -13.33% x 1.15
num::int_log::u8_log10_random_small 376 325 -51 -13.56% x 1.16
num::int_log::u16_log10_predictable 500 322 -178 -35.60% x 1.55
num::int_log::u16_log10_random 794 405 -389 -48.99% x 1.96
num::int_log::u16_log10_random_small 1,035 405 -630 -60.87% x 2.56
num::int_log::u32_log10_predictable 1,144 894 -250 -21.85% x 1.28
num::int_log::u32_log10_random 832 786 -46 -5.53% x 1.06
num::int_log::u32_log10_random_small 832 787 -45 -5.41% x 1.06
num::int_log::u64_log10_predictable 2,681 2,057 -624 -23.27% x 1.30
num::int_log::u64_log10_random 1,015 806 -209 -20.59% x 1.26
num::int_log::u64_log10_random_small 1,004 795 -209 -20.82% x 1.26
num::int_log::u128_log10_predictable 56,825 56,526 -299 -0.53% x 1.01
num::int_log::u128_log10_random 9,056 8,861 -195 -2.15% x 1.02
num::int_log::u128_log10_random_small 1,528 1,527 -1 -0.07% x 1.00
```
The 128 bit case remains ridiculously slow because llvm fails to optimize division by a constant 128-bit value to multiplications. This could be worked around but it seems preferable to fix this in llvm.
From u32 up, table lookup (like suggested [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70887#issuecomment-881099813)) is still faster, but requires a hardware `leading_zeros` to be viable, and might clog up the cache.
Fix ICE when compiling nightly std/rustc on beta compiler
Fix#89775#89479 renames a lot of diagnostic items, but it happens that the beta compiler assumes that there must be DefId with `rustc_diagnostic_item = "send_trait"`, causing an ICE when compiling stage 0 std or stage 1 compiler. So gate it with `cfg(bootstrap)`.
The unwrap is also removed, so that existence of the diagnostic item is not required. I ripgreped the code base and this seems the only place where `unwrap` is called on the return value of `get_diagnostic_item`.
Add `Poll::ready` and revert stabilization of `task::ready!`
This PR adds an inherent `ready` method to `Poll` that can be used with the `?` operator as an alternative to the `task::ready!` macro:
```rust
let val = ready!(fut.poll(cx));
let val = fut.poll(cx).ready()?;
```
I think this form is a nice, non-breaking middle ground between changing the `impl Try for Poll`, and adding a separate macro. It looks better than `ready!` in my opinion, and it composes well:
```rust
let elem = ready!(fut.poll(cx)).pop().unwrap();
let elem = fut.poll(cx).ready()?.pop().unwrap();
```
The planned stabilization of `ready!` in 1.56 has been reverted because I think this alternate approach is worth considering.
r? rust-lang/libs
