Stop bailing out from compilation just because there were incoherent traits
fixes#120343
but also has a lot of "type annotations needed" fallout. Some are fixed in the second commit.
Make `NonZero` constructors generic.
This makes `NonZero` constructors generic, so that `NonZero::new` can be used without turbofish syntax.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120257
~~I cannot figure out how to make this work with `const` traits. Not sure if I'm using it wrong or whether there's a bug:~~
```rust
101 | if n == T::ZERO {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `host`, found `true`
|
= note: expected constant `host`
found constant `true`
```
r? `@dtolnay`
Reconstify `Add`
r? project-const-traits
I'm not happy with the ui test changes (or failures because I did not bless them and include the diffs in this PR). There is at least some bugs I need to look and try fix:
1. A third duplicated diagnostic when a consumer crate that does not have `effects` enabled has a trait selection error for an upstream const_trait trait. See tests/ui/ufcs/ufcs-qpath-self-mismatch.rs.
2. For some reason, making `Add` a const trait would stop us from suggesting `T: Add` when we try to add two `T`s without that bound. See tests/ui/suggestions/issue-97677.rs
revert stabilization of const_intrinsic_copy
`@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` I don't know what we were thinking when we approved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97276... const-eval isn't supposed to be able to mutate anything yet! It's also near impossible to actually call `copy` in const on stable since `&mut` expressions are generally unstable. However, there's one exception...
```rust
static mut INT: i32 = unsafe {
let val = &mut [1]; // `&mut` on arrays is allowed in `static mut`
(val as *mut [i32; 1]).copy_from(&[42], 1);
val[0]
};
fn main() { unsafe {
dbg!(INT);
} }
```
Inside `static mut`, we accept some `&mut` since ~forever, to make `static mut FOO: &mut [T] = &mut [...];` work. We reject any attempt to actually write to that mutable reference though... except for the `copy` functions.
I think we should revert stabilizing these functions that take `*mut`, and then re-stabilize them together with `ptr.write` once mutable references are stable.
(This will likely fail on PowerPC until https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/pull/1497 lands. But we'll need a crater run first anyway.)
PartialEq, PartialOrd: update and synchronize handling of transitive chains
It was brought up in https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/total-equality-relations-as-std-eq-rhs/19232 that we currently have a gap in our `PartialEq` rules, which this PR aims to close:
> For example, with PartialEq's conditions you may have a = b = c = d ≠ a (where a and c are of type A, b and d are of type B).
The second commit fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87067 by updating PartialOrd to handle the requirements the same way PartialEq does.
Clarify ambiguity in select_nth_unstable docs
Original docs for `select_nth_unstable` family of functions were ambiguous as to whether "the element at `index`" was the element at `index` before the function reordered the elements or after the function reordered the elements.
The most helpful change in this PR is to change the given examples to make this absolutely clear. Before, "the element at `index`" was the same value before and after the reordering, so it didn't help disambiguate the meaning. I've changed the example for `select_nth_unstable` and `select_nth_unstable_by` so that "the element at `index`" is different before and after the reordering, which clears up the ambiguity. The function `select_nth_unstable_by_key` already had an example that was unambiguous.
In an attempt to clear up the ambiguity from the get-go, I've added a bit of redundancy to the text. Now the docs refer to "the element at `index` *after the reordering*".
raw pointer metadata API: data address -> data pointer
A pointer consists of [more than just an address](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3559), so let's not equate "pointer" and "address" in these docs.
core: add `From<core::ascii::Char>` implementations
Introduce `From<core::ascii::Char>` implementations for all unsigned
numeric types and `char`. This matches the API of `char` type.
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110998
Rename `pointer` field on `Pin`
A few days ago, I was helping another user create a self-referential type using `PhantomPinned`. However, I noticed an odd behavior when I tried to access one of the type's fields via `Pin`'s `Deref` impl:
```rust
use std::{marker::PhantomPinned, ptr};
struct Pinned {
data: i32,
pointer: *const i32,
_pin: PhantomPinned,
}
fn main() {
let mut b = Box::pin(Pinned {
data: 42,
pointer: ptr::null(),
_pin: PhantomPinned,
});
{
let pinned = unsafe { b.as_mut().get_unchecked_mut() };
pinned.pointer = &pinned.data;
}
println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
}
```
```rust
error[E0658]: use of unstable library feature 'unsafe_pin_internals'
--> <source>:19:30
|
19 | println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
| ^^^^^^^^^
error[E0277]: `Pinned` doesn't implement `std::fmt::Display`
--> <source>:19:20
|
19 | println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `Pinned` cannot be formatted with the default formatter
|
= help: the trait `std::fmt::Display` is not implemented for `Pinned`
= note: in format strings you may be able to use `{:?}` (or {:#?} for pretty-print) instead
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::format_args_nl` which comes from the expansion of the macro `println` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Since the user named their field `pointer`, it conflicts with the `pointer` field on `Pin`, which is public but unstable since Rust 1.60.0 with #93176. On versions from 1.33.0 to 1.59.0, where the field on `Pin` is private, this program compiles and prints `42` as expected.
To avoid this confusing behavior, this PR renames `pointer` to `__pointer`, so that it's less likely to conflict with a `pointer` field on the underlying type, as accessed through the `Deref` impl. This is technically a breaking change for anyone who names their field `__pointer` on the inner type; if this is undesirable, it could be renamed to something more longwinded. It's also a nightly breaking change for any external users of `unsafe_pin_internals`.
stabilise array methods
Closes#76118
Stabilises the remaining array methods
FCP is yet to be carried out for this
There wasn't a clear consensus on the naming, but all the other alternatives had some flaws as discussed in the tracking issue and there was a silence on this issue for a year
