Deny unsafe ops in unsafe fns in libcore
After `liballoc`, It's time for `libcore` :D
I planned to do this bit by bit to avoid having a big chunk of diffs, so to make reviews easier, and to make the unsafe blocks narrower and take the time to document them properly.
r? @nikomatsakis cc @RalfJung
Make `likely` and `unlikely` const, gated by feature `const_unlikely`
This PR also contains a fix to allow `#[allow_internal_unstable]` to work properly with `#[rustc_const_unstable]`.
cc @RalfJung @nagisa
r? @oli-obk
Stabilize `#![feature(const_if_match)]`
Quoting from the [stabilization report](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49146#issuecomment-616301045):
> `if` and `match` expressions as well as the short-circuiting logic operators `&&` and `||` will become legal in all [const contexts](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/const_eval.html#const-context). A const context is any of the following:
>
> - The initializer of a `const`, `static`, `static mut` or enum discriminant.
> - The body of a `const fn`.
> - The value of a const generic (nightly only).
> - The length of an array type (`[u8; 3]`) or an array repeat expression (`[0u8; 3]`).
>
> Furthermore, the short-circuiting logic operators will no longer be lowered to their bitwise equivalents (`&` and `|` respectively) in `const` and `static` initializers (see #57175). As a result, `let` bindings can be used alongside short-circuiting logic in those initializers.
Resolves#49146.
Ideally, we would resolve 🐳#66753 before this lands on stable, so it might be worth pushing this back a release. Also, this means we should get the process started for #52000, otherwise people will have no recourse except recursion for iterative `const fn`.
r? @oli-obk
They used to be covered by `optin_builtin_traits` but negative impls
are now applicable to all traits, not just auto traits.
This also adds docs in the unstable book for the current state of auto traits.
This commit introduces 2 methods - `Option::zip` and `Option::zip_with` with
respective signatures:
- zip: `(Option<T>, Option<U>) -> Option<(T, U)>`
- zip_with: `(Option<T>, Option<U>, (T, U) -> R) -> Option<R>`
Both are under the feature gate "option_zip".
I'm not sure about the name "zip", maybe we can find a better name for this.
(I would prefer `union` for example, but this is a keyword :( )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently in a russian rust begginers telegram chat a newbie asked (translated):
> Are there any methods for these conversions:
>
> 1. `(Option<A>, Option<B>) -> Option<(A, B)>`
> 2. `Vec<Option<T>> -> Option<Vec<T>>`
>
> ?
While second (2.) is clearly `vec.into_iter().collect::<Option<Vec<_>>()`, the
first one isn't that clear.
I couldn't find anything similar in the `core` and I've come to this solution:
```rust
let tuple: (Option<A>, Option<B>) = ...;
let res: Option<(A, B)> = tuple.0.and_then(|a| tuple.1.map(|b| (a, b)));
```
However this solution isn't "nice" (same for just `match`/`if let`), so I thought
that this functionality should be in `core`.
make `mem::discriminant` const
implements #69821, which could be used as a tracking issue for `const_discriminant`.
Should this be added to the meta tracking issue #57563?
@Lokathor
Stabilize const for integer {to,from}_{be,le,ne}_bytes methods
All of these functions can be implemented simply and naturally as const functions, e.g. `u32::from_le_bytes` can be implemented as
```rust
(bytes[0] as u32)
| (bytes[1] as u32) << 8
| (bytes[2] as u32) << 16
| (bytes[3] as u32) << 24
```
So stabilizing the constness will not expose that internally they are implemented using transmute which is not const in stable.
Remove spotlight
I had a few comments saying that this feature was at best misunderstood or not even used so I decided to organize a poll about on [twitter](https://twitter.com/imperioworld_/status/1232769353503956994). After 87 votes, the result is very clear: it's not useful. Considering the amount of code we have just to run it, I think it's definitely worth it to remove it.
r? @kinnison
cc @ollie27
Stabilize assoc_int_consts associated int/float constants
The next step in RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2700 (tracking issue #68490). Stabilizing the associated constants that were added in #68325.
* Stabilize all constants under the `assoc_int_consts` feature flag.
* Update documentation on old constants to say they are soft-deprecated and the new ones should be preferred.
* Update documentation examples to use new constants.
* Remove `uint_macro` and use `int_macro` for all integer types since the macros were identical anyway.
r? @LukasKalbertodt
Add primitive module to libcore
This re-exports the primitive types from libcore at `core::primitive` to allow
macro authors to have a reliable location to use them from.
Fixes#44865
All of these functions can be implemented simply and naturally as
const functions, e.g. u32::from_le_bytes can be implemented as
(bytes[0] as u32)
| (bytes[1] as u32) << 8
| (bytes[2] as u32) << 16
| (bytes[3] as u32) << 24
So stabilizing the constness will not expose that internally they are
implemented using transmute which is not const in stable.
Make integer exponentiation methods unstably const
cc #53718
This makes the following inherent methods on integer primitives into unstable `const fn`:
- `pow`
- `checked_pow`
- `wrapping_pow`
- `overflowing_pow`
- `saturating_pow`
- `next_power_of_two`
- `checked_next_power_of_two`
- `wrapping_next_power_of_two`
Only two changes were made to the implementation of these methods. First, I had to switch from the `?` operator, which is not yet implemented in a const context, to a `try_opt` macro. Second, `next_power_of_two` was using `ops::Add::add` (see the first commit) to "get overflow checks", so I switched to `#[rustc_inherit_overflow_checks]`. I'm not quite sure why the attribute wasn't used in the first place.
Step stage0 to bootstrap from 1.42
This also includes a commit which fixes the rustfmt downloading logic to redownload when the rustfmt channel changes, and bumps rustfmt to a more recent version.
