Remove `#[rustc_deprecated]`
This removes `#[rustc_deprecated]` and introduces diagnostics to help users to the right direction (that being `#[deprecated]`). All uses of `#[rustc_deprecated]` have been converted. CI is expected to fail initially; this requires #95958, which includes converting `stdarch`.
I plan on following up in a short while (maybe a bootstrap cycle?) removing the diagnostics, as they're only intended to be short-term.
Since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95340 landed, Miri with
-Zmiri-check-number-validity produces an error on the test suites of
some crates which implement concurrency tools, because it seems like
such crates tend to use std::sync::mpsc in their tests. This fixes the
problem by storing pointer bytes in a pointer.
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
The documentation on `std::sync::mpsc::Iter` and `std::sync::mpsc::TryIter` provides links to the corresponding `Receiver` methods, unlike `std::sync::mpsc::IntoIter` does.
This was left out in c59b188aae
Related to #29377
Remove unnecessary condition in Barrier::wait()
This is my first pull request for Rust, so feel free to call me out if anything is amiss.
After some examination, I realized that the second condition of the "spurious-wakeup-handler" loop in ``std::sync::Barrier::wait()`` should always evaluate to ``true``, making it redundant in the ``&&`` expression.
Here is the affected function before the fix:
```rust
#[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
pub fn wait(&self) -> BarrierWaitResult {
let mut lock = self.lock.lock().unwrap();
let local_gen = lock.generation_id;
lock.count += 1;
if lock.count < self.num_threads {
// We need a while loop to guard against spurious wakeups.
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_wakeup
while local_gen == lock.generation_id && lock.count < self.num_threads { // fixme
lock = self.cvar.wait(lock).unwrap();
}
BarrierWaitResult(false)
} else {
lock.count = 0;
lock.generation_id = lock.generation_id.wrapping_add(1);
self.cvar.notify_all();
BarrierWaitResult(true)
}
}
```
At first glance, it seems that the check that ``lock.count < self.num_threads`` would be necessary in order for a thread A to detect when another thread B has caused the barrier to reach its thread count, making thread B the "leader".
However, the control flow implicitly results in an invariant that makes observing ``!(lock.count < self.num_threads)``, i.e. ``lock.count >= self.num_threads`` impossible from thread A.
When thread B, which will be the leader, calls ``.wait()`` on this shared instance of the ``Barrier``, it locks the mutex in the first line and saves the ``MutexGuard`` in the ``lock`` variable. It then increments the value of ``lock.count``. However, it then proceeds to check if ``lock.count < self.num_threads``. Since it is the leader, it is the case that (after the increment of ``lock.count``), the lock count is *equal* to the number of threads. Thus, the second branch is immediately taken and ``lock.count`` is zeroed. Additionally, the generation ID is incremented (with wrap). Then, the condition variable is signalled. But, the other threads are waiting at the line ``lock = self.cvar.wait(lock).unwrap();``, so they cannot resume until thread B's call to ``Barrier::wait()`` returns, which drops the ``MutexGuard`` acquired in the first ``let`` statement and unlocks the mutex.
The order of events is thus:
1. A thread A calls `.wait()`
2. `.wait()` acquires the mutex, increments `lock.count`, and takes the first branch
3. Thread A enters the ``while`` loop since the generation ID has not changed and the count is less than the number of threads for the ``Barrier``
3. Spurious wakeups occur, but both conditions hold, so the thread A waits on the condition variable
4. This process repeats for N - 2 additional times for non-leader threads A'
5. *Meanwhile*, Thread B calls ``Barrier::wait()`` on the same barrier that threads A, A', A'', etc. are waiting on. The thread count reaches the number of threads for the ``Barrier``, so all threads should now proceed, with B being the leader. B acquires the mutex and increments the value ``lock.count`` only to find that it is not less than ``self.num_threads``. Thus, it immediately clamps ``self.num_threads`` back down to 0 and increments the generation. Then, it signals the condvar to tell the A (prime) threads that they may continue.
6. The A, A', A''... threads wake up and attempt to re-acquire the ``lock`` as per the internal operation of a condition variable. When each A has exclusive access to the mutex, it finds that ``lock.generation_id`` no longer matches ``local_generation`` **and the ``&&`` expression short-circuits -- and even if it were to evaluate it, ``self.count`` is definitely less than ``self.num_threads`` because it has been reset to ``0`` by thread B *before* B dropped its ``MutexGuard``**.
Therefore, it my understanding that it would be impossible for the non-leader threads to ever see the second boolean expression evaluate to anything other than ``true``. This PR simply removes that condition.
Any input would be appreciated. Sorry if this is terribly verbose. I'm new to the Rust community and concurrency can be hard to explain in words. Thanks!
There is a known bug in the implementation of mpsc channels in rust.
This adds a clearer error message when the bug occurs, so that developers don't lose too much time looking for the origin of the bug.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39364
Explain non-dropped sender recv in docs
Original senders that are still hanging around could cause
Receiver::recv to not block since this is a potential footgun
for beginners, clarify more on this in the docs for readers to
be aware about it.
Maybe it would be better to show an example of the pattern where `drop(tx)` is used when it is being cloned multiple times? Although I have seen it in quite a few articles but I am surprised that this part is not very clear with the current words without careful reading.
> If the corresponding Sender has disconnected, or it disconnects while this call is blocking, this call will wake up and return Err to indicate that no more messages can ever be received on this channel. However, since channels are buffered, messages sent before the disconnect will still be properly received.
Some words there may seemed similar if I carefully read and relate it but if I am new, I probably does not know "drop" makes it "disconnected". So I mention the words "drop" and "alive" to make it more relatable to lifetime.
Original senders that are still hanging around could cause
Receiver::recv to not block since this is a potential footgun
for beginners, clarify more on this in the docs for readers to
be aware about it.
Fix minor tidbits in sender recv doc
Co-authored-by: Dylan DPC <dylan.dpc@gmail.com>
Add example for unbounded receive loops in doc
Show the drop(tx) pattern, based on tokio docs
https://tokio-rs.github.io/tokio/doc/tokio/sync/index.html
Fix example code for drop sender recv
Fix wording in sender docs
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
- Split `sys_common::RWLock` between `StaticRWLock` and `MovableRWLock`
- Unbox `RwLock` on some platforms (Windows, Wasm and unsupported)
- Simplify `RwLock::into_inner`
Clarify error returns from Mutex::try_lock, RwLock::try_read,
RwLock::try_write to make it more obvious that both poisoning
and the lock being already locked are possible errors.
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See #67364.)
Fix Debug implementation for RwLock{Read,Write}Guard.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print `"<locked>"` unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
MutexGuard had this problem too: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57702
