Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
Add `Context::ext`
This change enables `Context` to carry arbitrary extension data via a single `&mut dyn Any` field.
```rust
#![feature(context_ext)]
impl Context {
fn ext(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Any;
}
impl ContextBuilder {
fn ext(self, data: &'a mut dyn Any) -> Self;
fn from(cx: &'a mut Context<'_>) -> Self;
fn waker(self, waker: &'a Waker) -> Self;
}
```
Basic usage:
```rust
struct MyExtensionData {
executor_name: String,
}
let mut ext = MyExtensionData {
executor_name: "foo".to_string(),
};
let mut cx = ContextBuilder::from_waker(&waker).ext(&mut ext).build();
if let Some(ext) = cx.ext().downcast_mut::<MyExtensionData>() {
println!("{}", ext.executor_name);
}
```
Currently, `Context` only carries a `Waker`, but there is interest in having it carry other kinds of data. Examples include [LocalWaker](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118959), [a reactor interface](https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/347), and [multiple arbitrary values by type](https://docs.rs/context-rs/latest/context_rs/). There is also a general practice in the ecosystem of sharing data between executors and futures via thread-locals or globals that would arguably be better shared via `Context`, if it were possible.
The `ext` field would provide a low friction (to stabilization) solution to enable experimentation. It would enable experimenting with what kinds of data we want to carry as well as with what data structures we may want to use to carry such data.
Dedicated fields for specific kinds of data could still be added directly on `Context` when we have sufficient experience or understanding about the problem they are solving, such as with `LocalWaker`. The `ext` field would be for data for which we don't have such experience or understanding, and that could be graduated to dedicated fields once proven.
Both the provider and consumer of the extension data must be aware of the concrete type behind the `Any`. This means it is not possible for the field to carry an abstract interface. However, the field can carry a concrete type which in turn carries an interface. There are different ways one can imagine an interface-carrying concrete type to work, hence the benefit of being able to experiment with such data structures.
## Passing interfaces
Interfaces can be placed in a concrete type, such as a struct, and then that type can be casted to `Any`. However, one gotcha is `Any` cannot contain non-static references. This means one cannot simply do:
```rust
struct Extensions<'a> {
interface1: &'a mut dyn Trait1,
interface2: &'a mut dyn Trait2,
}
let mut ext = Extensions {
interface1: &mut impl1,
interface2: &mut impl2,
};
let ext: &mut dyn Any = &mut ext;
```
To work around this without boxing, unsafe code can be used to create a safe projection using accessors. For example:
```rust
pub struct Extensions {
interface1: *mut dyn Trait1,
interface2: *mut dyn Trait2,
}
impl Extensions {
pub fn new<'a>(
interface1: &'a mut (dyn Trait1 + 'static),
interface2: &'a mut (dyn Trait2 + 'static),
scratch: &'a mut MaybeUninit<Self>,
) -> &'a mut Self {
scratch.write(Self {
interface1,
interface2,
})
}
pub fn interface1(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Trait1 {
unsafe { self.interface1.as_mut().unwrap() }
}
pub fn interface2(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Trait2 {
unsafe { self.interface2.as_mut().unwrap() }
}
}
let mut scratch = MaybeUninit::uninit();
let ext: &mut Extensions = Extensions::new(&mut impl1, &mut impl2, &mut scratch);
// ext can now be casted to `&mut dyn Any` and back, and used safely
let ext: &mut dyn Any = ext;
```
## Context inheritance
Sometimes when futures poll other futures they want to provide their own `Waker` which requires creating their own `Context`. Unfortunately, polling sub-futures with a fresh `Context` means any properties on the original `Context` won't get propagated along to the sub-futures. To help with this, some additional methods are added to `ContextBuilder`.
Here's how to derive a new `Context` from another, overriding only the `Waker`:
```rust
let mut cx = ContextBuilder::from(parent_cx).waker(&new_waker).build();
```
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
doc: describe panic conditions for SliceIndex implementations
Implementation note: The most probable place for users to find the documentation is at https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/slice/trait.SliceIndex.html
On that page, documentation added to specific methods will not be visible. As such, I opted to add the comments to the impl blocks directly.
Helps with #121568.
Implementation note: The most probable place for users to find
the documentation is at https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/slice/trait.SliceIndex.html
On that page, documentation added to specific methods will not
be visible. As such, I opted to add the comments to the impl blocks
directly.
Helps with #121568.
This is just one part of the MCP, but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
Add detection of [Partial]Ord methods in the `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint
Partially addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121264 by adding diagnostics items for PartialOrd and Ord methods, detecting such diagnostics items as "binary operation" and suggesting the correct replacement.
I also took the opportunity to change the suggestion to use new methods `.cast()` on `*mut T` an d `*const T`.
Because `HashMap::with_hasher` constness is being stabilized this will
in turn allow creating empty HashMap<K,V,BuildHasherDefault<H>> in const
context for any H: Default + Hasher.
Eliminate `UbChecks` for non-standard libraries
The purpose of this PR is to allow other passes to treat `UbChecks` as constants in MIR for optimization after #122629.
r? RalfJung
Codegen const panic messages as function calls
This skips emitting extra arguments at every callsite (of which there
can be many). For a librustc_driver build with overflow checks enabled,
this cuts 0.7MB from the resulting shared library (see [perf]).
A sample improvement from nightly:
```
leaq str.0(%rip), %rdi
leaq .Lalloc_d6aeb8e2aa19de39a7f0e861c998af13(%rip), %rdx
movl $25, %esi
callq *_ZN4core9panicking5panic17h17cabb89c5bcc999E@GOTPCREL(%rip)
```
to this PR:
```
leaq .Lalloc_d6aeb8e2aa19de39a7f0e861c998af13(%rip), %rdi
callq *_RNvNtNtCsduqIKoij8JB_4core9panicking11panic_const23panic_const_div_by_zero@GOTPCREL(%rip)
```
[perf]: https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=a7e4de13c1785819f4d61da41f6704ed69d5f203&end=64fbb4f0b2d621ff46d559d1e9f5ad89a8d7789b&stat=instructions:u
`num::NonZero::get` can be 1 transmute instead of 2
Just something I noticed in passing. No need for a `match` in here to call `unreachable_unchecked`, as `transmute_unchecked` will add the appropriate `llvm.assume` <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/W5hjeETnc>.
Clarify atomic bit validity
The previous definition used the phrase "representation", which is ambiguous given the current state of memory model nomenclature in Rust. For integer types and for `AtomicPtr<T>`, the new wording clarifies that size and bit validity are guaranteed to match the corresponding native integer type/`*mut T`. For `AtomicBool`, the new wording clarifies that size, alignment, and bit validity are guaranteed to match `bool`.
Note that we use the phrase "size and alignment" rather than "layout" since the latter term also implies that the field types are the same. This isn't true - `AtomicXxx` doesn't store an `xxx`, but rather an `UnsafeCell<xxx>`. This distinction is important for some `unsafe` code, which needs to reason about the presence or absence of interior mutability in order to ensure that their code is sound (see e.g. https://github.com/google/zerocopy/issues/251).
Soft-destabilize `RustcEncodable` & `RustcDecodable`, remove from prelude in next edition
cc rust-lang/libs-team#272
Any use of `RustcEncodable` and `RustcDecodable` now triggers a deny-by-default lint. The derives have been removed from the 2024 prelude. I specifically chose **not** to document this in the module-level documentation, as the presence in existing preludes is not documented (which I presume is intentional).
This does not implement the proposed change for `rustfix`, which I will be looking into shortly.
With regard to the items in the preludes being stable, this should not be an issue because #15702 has been resolved.
r? libs-api
Import the 2021 prelude in the core crate
The `core` crate currently imports the v1 prelude
b3df0d7e5e/library/core/src/lib.rs (L285-L287)
This recently caused an issue when updating the `portable-simd` subtree since it was using a trait that was added to the 2021 prelude: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122905#discussion_r1536228822
To make it easier to have a consistent build environment for subtrees and submodules that get included in `core`, we will now import the 2021 prelude into `core`.
Fixes#122912
r? `@Nilstrieb`
