Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude
(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
miri: rename intrinsic_fallback_checks_ub to intrinsic_fallback_is_spec
Checking UB is not the only concern, we also have to make sure we are not losing out on non-determinism.
r? ``@oli-obk`` (not urgent, take your time)
offset: allow zero-byte offset on arbitrary pointers
As per prior `@rust-lang/opsem` [discussion](https://github.com/rust-lang/opsem-team/issues/10) and [FCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/472#issuecomment-1793409130):
- Zero-sized reads and writes are allowed on all sufficiently aligned pointers, including the null pointer
- Inbounds-offset-by-zero is allowed on all pointers, including the null pointer
- `offset_from` on two pointers derived from the same allocation is always allowed when they have the same address
This removes surprising UB (in particular, even C++ allows "nullptr + 0", which we currently disallow), and it brings us one step closer to an important theoretical property for our semantics ("provenance monotonicity": if operations are valid on bytes without provenance, then adding provenance can't make them invalid).
The minimum LLVM we require (v17) includes https://reviews.llvm.org/D154051, so we can finally implement this.
The `offset_from` change is needed to maintain the equivalence with `offset`: if `let ptr2 = ptr1.offset(N)` is well-defined, then `ptr2.offset_from(ptr1)` should be well-defined and return N. Now consider the case where N is 0 and `ptr1` dangles: we want to still allow offset_from here.
I think we should change offset_from further, but that's a separate discussion.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65108
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117945) | [T-lang summary](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117329#issuecomment-1951981106)
Cc `@nikic`
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
Abort a process when FD ownership is violated
When an owned FD has already been closed before it's dropped that means something else touched an FD in ways it is not allowed to. At that point things can already be arbitrarily bad, e.g. clobbered mmaps. Recovery is not possible.
All we can do is hasten the fire.
Unlike the previous attempt in #124130 this shouldn't suffer from the possibility that FUSE filesystems can return arbitrary errors.
Dellvmize some intrinsics (use `u32` instead of `Self` in some integer intrinsics)
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693 minus what was implemented in #123226.
Note: I decided to _not_ change `shl`/... builder methods, as it just doesn't seem worth it.
r? ``@scottmcm``
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.~~
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
transmute: caution against int2ptr transmutation
This came up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121282.
Cc ```@saethlin``` ```@scottmcm```
Eventually we'll add a proper description of provenance that we can reference, but that's a bunch of work and it's unclear who will have the time to do that when. Meanwhile, let's at least do what we can without mentioning provenance explicitly.
Let codegen decide when to `mem::swap` with immediates
Making `libcore` decide this is silly; the backend has so much better information about when it's a good idea.
Thus this PR introduces a new `typed_swap` intrinsic with a fallback body, and replaces that fallback implementation when swapping immediates or scalar pairs.
r? oli-obk
Replaces #111744, and means we'll never need more libs PRs like #111803 or #107140
