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.~~
Make `io::BorrowedCursor::advance` safe
This also keeps the old `advance` method under `advance_unchecked` name.
This makes pattern like `std::io::default_read_buf` safe to write.
Rename MaybeUninit::write_slice
A step to push #79995 forward.
https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/122 also suggested to make them inherent methods, but they can't be — they'd conflict with slice's regular methods.
core: add Duration constructors
Add more `Duration` constructors.
Tracking issue: #120301.
These match similar convenience constructors available on both `chrono::Duration` and `time::Duration`.
What's the best ordering for these with respect to the existing constructors?
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
Implement iterator specialization traits on more adapters
This adds
* `TrustedLen` to `Skip` and `StepBy`
* `TrustedRandomAccess` to `Skip`
* `InPlaceIterable` and `SourceIter` to `Copied` and `Cloned`
The first two might improve performance in the compiler itself since `skip` is used in several places. Constellations that would exercise the last point are probably rare since it would require an owning iterator that has references as Items somewhere in its iterator pipeline.
Improvements for `Skip`:
```
# old
test iter::bench_skip_trusted_random_access ... bench: 8,335 ns/iter (+/- 90)
# new
test iter::bench_skip_trusted_random_access ... bench: 2,753 ns/iter (+/- 27)
```
Add Ipv6Addr::is_ipv4_mapped
This change consists of cherry-picking the content from the original PR[1], which got closed due to inactivity, and applying the following changes:
* Resolving merge conflicts (obviously)
* Linked to to_ipv4_mapped instead of to_ipv4 in the documentation (seems more appropriate)
* Added the must_use and rustc_const_unstable attributes the original didn't have
I think it's a reasonably useful method to have.
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86490
Use `bool` instead of `PartiolOrd` as return value of the comparison closure in `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by`
Changes the function signature of the closure given to `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by` to return a `bool` instead of a `PartiolOrd` as suggested by the libs-api team here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53485#issuecomment-1766411980.
This means these functions now return true if the closure returns true for all the pairs of values.
Stabilize single-field offset_of
This PR stabilizes offset_of for a single field. There has been some further discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106655 about whether this is advisable; I'm opening the PR anyway so that the code is available.
Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.
The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped.
If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate.
[Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286#issuecomment-1862159766)
Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
This PR does a few different things based around stabilizing `slice_first_last_chunk`. They are split up so this PR can be by-commit reviewed, I can move parts to a separate PR if desired.
This feature provides a very elegant API to extract arrays from either end of a slice, such as for parsing integers from binary data.
## Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/69
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774
This stabilizes the functionality from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774:
```rust
impl [T] {
pub const fn first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn split_first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T; N], &[T])>;
pub fn split_first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T; N], &mut [T])>;
pub const fn split_last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T], &[T; N])>;
pub fn split_last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T; N])>;
}
```
Const stabilization is included for all non-mut methods, which are blocked on `const_mut_refs`. This change includes marking the trivial function `slice_split_at_unchecked` const-stable for internal use (but not fully stable).
## Remove `split_array` slice methods
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83233#pullrequestreview-780315524
This PR also removes the following unstable methods from the `split_array` feature, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091:
```rust
impl<T> [T] {
pub fn split_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T; N], &[T]);
pub fn split_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T; N], &mut [T]);
pub fn rsplit_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T], &[T; N]);
pub fn rsplit_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T; N]);
}
```
This is done because discussion at #90091 and its implementation PR indicate a strong preference for nonpanicking APIs that return `Option`. The only difference between functions under the `split_array` and `slice_first_last_chunk` features is `Option` vs. panic, so remove the duplicates as part of this stabilization.
This does not affect the array methods from `split_array`. We will want to revisit these once `generic_const_exprs` is further along.
## Reverse order of return tuple for `split_last_chunk{,_mut}`
An unresolved question for #111774 is whether to return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` (`(&[T], &[T; N])`) or the reverse (`(&[T; N], &[T])`), from `split_last_chunk` and `split_last_chunk_mut`. It is currently implemented as `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)` which matches `split_last -> (&T, &[T])`. The first commit changes these to `(&[T], &[T; N])` for these reasons:
- More consistent with other splitting methods that return multiple values: `str::rsplit_once`, `slice::split_at{,_mut}`, `slice::align_to` all return tuples with the items in order
- More intuitive (arguably opinion, but it is consistent with other language elements like pattern matching `let [a, b, rest @ ..] ...`
- If we ever added a varidic way to obtain multiple chunks, it would likely return something in order: `.split_many_last::<(2, 4)>() -> (&[T], &[T; 2], &[T; 4])`
- It is the ordering used in the `rsplit_array` methods
I think the inconsistency with `split_last` could be acceptable in this case, since for `split_last` the scalar `&T` doesn't have any internal order to maintain with the other items.
## Unresolved questions
Do we want to reserve the same names on `[u8; N]` to avoid inference confusion? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117561#issuecomment-1793388647
---
`slice_first_last_chunk` has only been around since early 2023, but `split_array` has been around since 2021.
`@rustbot` label -T-libs +T-libs-api -T-libs +needs-fcp
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval,` `@scottmcm` who raised this topic, `@clarfonthey` implementer of `slice_first_last_chunk` `@jethrogb` implementer of `split_array`
Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Stabilizing.20array-from-slice.20*something*.3FFixes: #111774
Mark Rousskov