Chris Denton f1d0b9c645
Rollup merge of #139726 - Amanieu:select_unpredictable_hint, r=dtolnay
Move `select_unpredictable` to the `hint` module

There has been considerable discussion in both the ACP (rust-lang/libs-team#468) and tracking issue (#133962) about whether the `bool::select_unpredictable` method should be in `core::hint` instead.

I believe this is the right move for the following reasons:
- The documentation explicitly says that it is a hint, not a codegen guarantee.
- `bool` doesn't have a corresponding `select` method, and I don't think we should be adding one.
- This shouldn't be something that people reach for with auto-completion unless they specifically understand the interactions with branch prediction. Using conditional moves can easily make code *slower* by preventing the CPU from speculating past the condition due to the data dependency.
- Although currently `core::hint` only contains no-ops, this isn't a hard rule (for example `unreachable_unchecked` is a bit of a gray area). The documentation only status that the module contains "hints to compiler that affects how code should be emitted or optimized". This is consistent with what `select_unpredictable` does.
2025-04-13 11:48:20 +00:00
..
2025-04-07 07:11:52 -04:00
2025-04-06 21:41:47 +02:00
2025-04-07 18:12:06 -07:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2024-09-09 19:39:43 -07:00
2025-02-03 10:39:32 -05:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2024-12-10 21:41:05 +01:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2025-03-02 18:53:49 +00:00
2025-02-24 09:26:54 +00:00
2024-09-09 19:39:43 -07:00

The files here use the LLVM FileCheck framework, documented at https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html.

One extension worth noting is the use of revisions as custom prefixes for FileCheck. If your codegen test has different behavior based on the chosen target or different compiler flags that you want to exercise, you can use a revisions annotation, like so:

// revisions: aaa bbb
// [bbb] compile-flags: --flags-for-bbb

After specifying those variations, you can write different expected, or explicitly unexpected output by using <prefix>-SAME: and <prefix>-NOT:, like so:

// CHECK: expected code
// aaa-SAME: emitted-only-for-aaa
// aaa-NOT:                        emitted-only-for-bbb
// bbb-NOT:  emitted-only-for-aaa
// bbb-SAME:                       emitted-only-for-bbb