Atomic as_mut_ptr
I encountered the following pattern a few times: In Rust we use some atomic type like `AtomicI32`, and an FFI interface exposes this as `*mut i32` (or some similar `libc` type).
It was not obvious to me if a just transmuting a pointer to the atomic was acceptable, or if this should use a cast that goes through an `UnsafeCell`. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66136#issuecomment-557802477
Transmuting the pointer directly:
```rust
let atomic = AtomicI32::new(1);
let ptr = &atomic as *const AtomicI32 as *mut i32;
unsafe {
ffi(ptr);
}
```
A dance with `UnsafeCell`:
```rust
let atomic = AtomicI32::new(1);
unsafe {
let ptr = (&*(&atomic as *const AtomicI32 as *const UnsafeCell<i32>)).get();
ffi(ptr);
}
```
Maybe in the end both ways could be valid. But why not expose a direct method to get a pointer from the standard library?
An `as_mut_ptr` method on atomics can be safe, because only the use of the resulting pointer is where things can get unsafe. I documented its use for FFI, and "Doing non-atomic reads and writes on the resulting integer can be a data race."
The standard library could make use this method in a few places in the WASM module.
cc @RalfJung as you answered my original question.
# Motivation
This macro is:
* General-purpose (not domain-specific)
* Simple (the implementation is short)
* Very popular [on crates.io](https://crates.io/crates/matches)
(currently 37th in all-time downloads)
* The two previous points combined make it number one in
[left-pad index](https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1184523027888988160)
score
As such, I feel it is a good candidate for inclusion in the standard library.
In fact I already felt that way five years ago:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/14685
(Although the proof of popularity was not as strong at the time.)
Back then, the main concern was that this macro may not be quite
universally-enough useful to belong in the prelude.
# API
Therefore, this PR adds the macro such that using it requires one of:
```
use core::macros::matches;
use std::macros::matches;
```
Like arms of a `match` expression,
the macro supports multiple patterns separated by `|`
and optionally followed by `if` and a guard expression:
```
let foo = 'f';
assert!(matches!(foo, 'A'..='Z' | 'a'..='z'));
let bar = Some(4);
assert!(matches!(bar, Some(x) if x > 2));
```
# Implementation constraints
A combination of reasons make it tricky
for a standard library macro not to be in the prelude.
Currently, all public `macro_rules` macros in the standard library macros
end up “in the prelude” of every crate not through `use std::prelude::v1::*;`
like for other kinds of items,
but through `#[macro_use]` on `extern crate std;`.
(Both are injected by `src/libsyntax_ext/standard_library_imports.rs`.)
`#[macro_use]` seems to import every macro that is available
at the top-level of a crate, even if through a `pub use` re-export.
Therefore, for `matches!` not to be in the prelude, we need it to be
inside of a module rather than at the root of `core` or `std`.
However, the only way to make a `macro_rules` macro public
outside of the crate where it is defined
appears to be `#[macro_export]`.
This exports the macro at the root of the crate
regardless of which module defines it.
See [macro scoping](
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/macros-by-example.html#scoping-exporting-and-importing)
in the reference.
Therefore, the macro needs to be defined in a crate
that is not `core` or `std`.
# Implementation
This PR adds a new `matches_macro` crate as a private implementation detail
of the standard library.
This crate is `#![no_core]` so that libcore can depend on it.
It contains a `macro_rules` definition with `#[macro_export]`.
libcore and libstd each have a new public `macros` module
that contains a `pub use` re-export of the macro.
Both the module and the macro are unstable, for now.
The existing private `macros` modules are renamed `prelude_macros`,
though their respective source remains in `macros.rs` files.
Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
This is a rebase of #56440, massaged to solve merge conflicts and make the test suite pass.
Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
Union fields may now never have a type with attached destructor. This for example allows unions to use arbitrary field types only by wrapping them in `ManuallyDrop` (or similar).
The stable rule remains, that union fields must be `Copy`. We use the new rule for the `untagged_union` feature.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55149
Stabilize todo macro
The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59277
This PR needs a FCP to merge.
r? @withoutboats
std: Add a `backtrace` module
This commit adds a `backtrace` module to the standard library, as
designed in [RFC 2504]. The `Backtrace` type is intentionally very
conservative, effectively only allowing capturing it and printing it.
Additionally this commit also adds a `backtrace` method to the `Error`
trait which defaults to returning `None`, as specified in [RFC 2504].
More information about the design here can be found in [RFC 2504] and in
the [tracking issue].
Implementation-wise this is all based on the `backtrace` crate and very
closely mirrors the `backtrace::Backtrace` type on crates.io. Otherwise
it's pretty standard in how it handles everything internally.
[RFC 2504]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2504-fix-error.md
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53487
cc #53487
This commit adds a `backtrace` module to the standard library, as
designed in [RFC 2504]. The `Backtrace` type is intentionally very
conservative, effectively only allowing capturing it and printing it.
Additionally this commit also adds a `backtrace` method to the `Error`
trait which defaults to returning `None`, as specified in [RFC 2504].
More information about the design here can be found in [RFC 2504] and in
the [tracking issue].
Implementation-wise this is all based on the `backtrace` crate and very
closely mirrors the `backtrace::Backtrace` type on crates.io. Otherwise
it's pretty standard in how it handles everything internally.
[RFC 2504]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2504-fix-error.md
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53487
cc #53487
… and add a separately-unstable field to force non-exhaustive matching
(`#[non_exhaustive]` is no implemented yet on enum variants)
so that we have the option to later expose the allocator’s error value.
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/23
This is duplicated in a few locations throughout the sysroot to work
around issues with not exporting a macro in libstd but still wanting it
available to sysroot crates to define blocks. Nowadays though we can
simply depend on the `cfg-if` crate on crates.io, allowing us to use it
from there!
