Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #86376 (Emit specific warning to clarify that `#[no_mangle]` should not be applied on foreign statics or functions)
- #88040 (BTree: remove Ord bound from new)
- #88053 (Fix the flock fallback implementation)
- #88350 (add support for clobbering xer, cr, and cr[0-7] for asm! on OpenPower/PowerPC)
- #88410 (Remove bolding on associated constants)
- #88525 (fix(rustc_typeck): produce better errors for dyn auto trait)
- #88542 (Use the return value of readdir_r() instead of errno)
- #88548 (Stabilize `Iterator::intersperse()`)
- #88551 (Stabilize `UnsafeCell::raw_get()`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Stabilize `UnsafeCell::raw_get()`
This PR stabilizes the associated function `UnsafeCell::raw_get()`. The FCP has [already completed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66358#issuecomment-899095068). While there was some discussion about the naming after the close of the FCP, it looks like people have agreed on this name. Still, it would probably be best if a `libs-api` member had a look at this and stated whether more discussion is needed.
While I was at it, I added some tests for `UnsafeCell`, because there were barely any.
Closes#66358.
Use the return value of readdir_r() instead of errno
POSIX says:
> If successful, the readdir_r() function shall return zero; otherwise,
> an error number shall be returned to indicate the error.
But we were previously using errno instead of the return value. This
led to issue #86649.
BTree: remove Ord bound from new
`K: Ord` bound is unnecessary on `BTree{Map,Set}::new` and their `Default` impl. No elements exist so there are nothing to compare anyway, so I don't think "future proof" would be a blocker here. This is analogous to `HashMap::new` not having a `K: Eq + Hash` bound.
#79245 originally does this and for some reason drops the change to `new` and `Default`. I can see why changes to other methods like `entry` or `symmetric_difference` need to be careful but I couldn't find out any reason not to do it on `new`.
Removing the bound also makes the stabilisation of `const fn new` not depending on const trait bounds.
cc `@steffahn` who suggests me to make this PR.
r? `@dtolnay`
Emit specific warning to clarify that `#[no_mangle]` should not be applied on foreign statics or functions
Foreign statics and foreign functions should not have `#[no_mangle]` applied, as it does nothing to the name and has some extra hidden behavior that is normally unwanted. There was an existing warning for this, but it says the attribute is only allowed on "statics or functions", which to the user can be confusing.
This PR adds a specific version of the unused `#[no_mangle]` warning that explains that the target is a *foreign* static or function and that they do not need the attribute.
Fixes#78989
Add bit removal methods to SparseBitMatrix and factor *BitSet relational methods into more extensible trait
I need the ability to clear the bits out of a row from `SparseBitMatrix`. Currently, all the mutating methods only allow insertion of bits, and there is no way to get access to the underlying data.
One approach is simply to make `ensure_row` public, since it grants `&mut` access to the underlying `HybridBitSet`. This PR adds the `pub` modifier. However, presumably this method was private for a reason, so I'm open to other designs. I would prefer general mutable access to the rows, because that way I can add many mutating operations (`clear`, `intersect`, etc.) without filing a PR each time :-)
r? `@ecstatic-morse`
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
Concrete regions can show up in mir borrowck if the originated from there
We used to not encounter them here, because we took regions from typeck's opaque type resolution by renumbering them. We don't do that anymore. Instead mir borrock does all the logic, and it can handle concrete regions just fine, as long as it created them itself.
fixes#83190 which was introduced by #87287
r? `@spastorino`
POSIX says:
> If successful, the readdir_r() function shall return zero; otherwise,
> an error number shall be returned to indicate the error.
But we were previously using errno instead of the return value. This
led to issue #86649.
Add `TcpStream::set_linger` and `TcpStream::linger`
Adds methods for getting/setting the `SO_LINGER` option on TCP sockets. Behavior is consistent across Unix and Windows.
r? `@joshtriplett` (I noticed you've been reviewing net related PRs)
Clean up the lowering of AST items
This PR simplifies and improves `rustc_ast_lowering::item` in various minor ways. The reasons for the changes should mostly be self evident, though I'm happy to specifically explain anything if needed.
These changes used to be part of #88019, but I removed them after it was pointed out that some of my other changes to `rustc_ast_lowering` were unnecessary. It felt like a bad idea to clean up code which I didn't even need to touch anymore.
r? `@cjgillot`
Add carrying_add, borrowing_sub, widening_mul, carrying_mul methods to integers
This comes in part from my own attempts to make (crude) big integer implementations, and also due to the stalled discussion in [RFC 2417](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2417). My understanding is that changes like these are best offered directly as code and then an RFC can be opened if there needs to be more discussion before stabilisation. Since all of these methods are unstable from the start, I figured I might as well offer them now.
I tried looking into intrinsics, messed around with a few different implementations, and ultimately concluded that these are "good enough" implementations for now to at least put up some code and maybe start bikeshedding on a proper API for these.
For the `carrying_add` and `borrowing_sub`, I tried looking into potential architecture-specific code and realised that even using the LLVM intrinsics for `addcarry` and `subborrow` on x86 specifically, I was getting exactly the same assembly as the naive implementation using `overflowing_add` and `overflowing_sub`, although the LLVM IR did differ because of the architecture-specific code. Longer-term I think that they would be best suited to specific intrinsics as that would make optimisations easier (instructions like add-carry tend to use implicit flags, and thus can only be optimised if they're done one-after-another, and thus it would make the most sense to have compact intrinsics that can be merged together easily).
For `widening_mul` and `carrying_mul`, for now at least, I simply cast to the larger type and perform arithmetic that way, since we currently have no intrinsic that would work better for 128-bit integers. In the future, I also think that some form of intrinsic would work best to cover that case, but for now at least, I think that they're "good enough" for now.
The main reasoning for offering these directly to the standard library even though they're relatively niche optimisations is to help ensure that the code generated for them is optimal. Plus, these operations alone aren't enough to create big integer implementations, although they could help simplify the code required to do so and make it a bit more accessible for the average implementor.
That said, I 100% understand if any or all of these methods are not desired simply because of how niche they are. Up to you. 🤷🏻
