Add `Iterator::array_chunks` (take N+1)
A revival of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/92393.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
cc `@rossmacarthur` `@scottmcm` `@the8472`
I've tried to address most of the review comments on the previous attempt. The only thing I didn't address is `try_fold` implementation, I've left the "custom" one for now, not sure what exactly should it use.
make raw_eq precondition more restrictive
Specifically, don't allow comparing pointers that way. Comparing pointers is subtle because you have to talk about what happens to the provenance.
This matches what [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=9eb1dfb8a61b5a2d4a7cee43df2717af), and all existing users are fine with this.
If raw_eq on pointers is ever desired, we can adjust the intrinsic spec and Miri implementation as needed, but for now that seems just unnecessary. Also, this is a const intrinsic, and in const, comparing pointers this way is *not possible* -- so if we allow the intrinsic to compare pointers in general, we need to impose an extra restrictions saying that in const-context, pointers are *not* okay.
Reoptimize layout array
This way it's one check instead of two, so hopefully (cc #99117) it'll be simpler for rustc perf too 🤞
Quick demonstration:
```rust
pub fn demo(n: usize) -> Option<Layout> {
Layout::array::<i32>(n).ok()
}
```
Nightly: <https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=release&edition=2021&gist=e97bf33508aa03f38968101cdeb5322d>
```nasm
mov rax, rdi
mov ecx, 4
mul rcx
seto cl
movabs rdx, 9223372036854775805
xor esi, esi
cmp rax, rdx
setb sil
shl rsi, 2
xor edx, edx
test cl, cl
cmove rdx, rsi
ret
```
This PR (note no `mul`, in addition to being much shorter):
```nasm
xor edx, edx
lea rax, [4*rcx]
shr rcx, 61
sete dl
shl rdx, 2
ret
```
This is built atop `@CAD97` 's #99136; the new changes are cb8aba66ef6a0e17f08a0574e4820653e31b45a0.
I added a bunch more tests for `Layout::from_size_align` and `Layout::array` too.
Inline CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked::rt_impl
Currently `CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked::rt_impl` is not being inlined. The following function:
```rust
pub unsafe fn from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked(bytes: &[u8]) {
CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked(bytes);
}
```
Outputs the following assembly on current nightly
```asm
example::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked:
jmp qword ptr [rip + _ZN4core3ffi5c_str4CStr29from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked7rt_impl17h026f29f3d6a41333E@GOTPCREL]
```
Meanwhile on beta this provides the following assembly:
```asm
example::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked:
ret
```
This pull request adds `#[inline]` annotation to`rt_impl` to fix a code generation regression for `CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked`.
docs: remove repetition in `is_numeric` function docs
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99628 we introduce new docs for the `is_numeric` function, and this is a follow-up PR that removes some unnecessary repetition that may be introduced by some rebasing.
`@rustbot` r? `@joshtriplett`
Add back Send and Sync impls on ChunksMut iterators
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100014
These were accidentally removed in #94247 because the representation was changed from `&mut [T]` to `*mut T`, which has `!Send + !Sync`.
do not claim that transmute is like memcpy
Saying transmute is like memcpy is not a well-formed statement, since memcpy is by-ref whereas transmute is by-val. The by-val nature of transmute inherently means that padding is lost along the way. (This is not specific to transmute, this is how all by-value operations work.) So adjust the docs to clarify this aspect.
Cc `@workingjubilee`
Orson Peters