never_patterns: typecheck never patterns
This checks that a `!` pattern is only used on an uninhabited type (modulo match ergonomics, i.e. `!` is allowed on `&Void`).
r? `@compiler-errors`
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)
Exhaustiveness: simplify empty pattern logic
The logic that handles empty patterns had gotten quite convoluted. This PR simplifies it a lot. I tried to make the logic as easy as possible to follow; this only does logically equivalent changes.
The first commit is a drive-by comment clarification that was requested after another PR a while back.
r? `@compiler-errors`
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
use implied bounds compat mode in MIR borrowck
cc
- #119956
- #118553
This should hopefully fix bevy 🤔 `cargo test` ends up freezing my computer though, cargo build went from err to ok however 😁
r? `@jackh726`
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #118665 (Consolidate all associated items on the NonZero integer types into a single impl block per type)
- #118798 (Use AtomicU8 instead of AtomicUsize in backtrace.rs)
- #119062 (Deny braced macro invocations in let-else)
- #119138 (Docs: Use non-SeqCst in module example of atomics)
- #119907 (Update `fn()` trait implementation docs)
- #120083 (Warn when not having a profiler runtime means that coverage tests won't be run/blessed)
- #120107 (dead_code treats #[repr(transparent)] the same as #[repr(C)])
- #120110 (Update documentation for Vec::into_boxed_slice to be more clear about excess capacity)
- #120113 (Remove myself from review rotation)
- #120118 (Fix typo in documentation in base.rs)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Expand lint tables && make clippy happy 🎉
This PR expands the lint tables on `./Cargo.toml` and thereby makes `cargo clippy` exit successfully! 🎉Fixes#15918
## How?
In the beginning there are some warnings for rustc.
Next, and most importantly, there is the clippy lint table. There are a few sections in there.
First there are the lint groups.
Second there are all lints which are permanently allowed with the reasoning why they are allowed.
Third there is a huge list of temporarily allowed lints. They should be removed in the mid-term, but incur a substantial amount of work, therefore they are allowed for now and can be worked on bit by bit.
Fourth there are all lints which should warn.
Additionally there are a few allow statements in the code for lints which should be permanently allowed in this specific place, but not in the whole code base.
## Follow up work
- [ ] Run clippy in CI
- [ ] Remove tidy test (at least `@Veykril` wrote this in #15017)
- [ ] Work on temporarily allowed lints
