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)).
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.
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
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.
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".
See also X-Link mem::{swap, take, replace}
Since it's easy to end up at one of these functions when you really wanted the other one, cross link them with descriptions of why you'd want to use them.
