Add hint::assert_unchecked
#119133
Add hint::assert_unchecked
#119133
Conversation
|
r? @thomcc (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
scottmcm
force-pushed
the
assert-unchecked
branch
from
3965209
to
edc59fb
Compare
library/core/src/hint.rs
Outdated
| #[unstable(feature = "hint_assert_unchecked", issue = "119131")] | ||
| pub const unsafe fn assert_unchecked(cond: bool) { | ||
| // SAFETY: The caller promised this is true. | ||
| unsafe { crate::intrinsics::assume(cond) } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to use assert_unsafe_precondition here like in other unchecked fns like unreachable_unchecked?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I suppose it should. Done.
scottmcm
force-pushed
the
assert-unchecked
branch
from
edc59fb
to
000d5bb
Compare
|
This could also point to |
scottmcm
force-pushed
the
assert-unchecked
branch
from
000d5bb
to
7556d6f
Compare
|
@the8472 Sure (The reciprocal mention will have to wait for stabilization.) |
| /// benefit to `let n = u32::count_ones(x); assert_unchecked(n <= u32::BITS);`. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// If ever you're tempted to write `assert_unchecked(false)`, then you're | ||
| /// actually looking for [`unreachable_unchecked()`]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth mentioning that this is logically entirely equivalent to if !cond { unreachable_unchecked(); }?
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (e1fadb2): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 670.004s -> 670.607s (0.09%) |
Libs-API expressed interest, modulo bikeshedding, in rust-lang/libs-team#315 (comment)
I think that means this is good for nightly, since we can always rename it before stabilization.
Tracking issue: #119131