Add extra `unchecked_disjoint_bitor` implementations. by bjoernager · Pull Request #147368 · rust-lang/rust

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:06Z

View all comments

Tracking issue: #135758.

This PR implements the unchecked_disjoint_bitor method for additional types:

implbool{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli8{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli16{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli32{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli64{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}impli128{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}implisize{pubconstunsafefnunchecked_disjoint_bitor(self,rhs:Self) -> Self;}

Our disjoint_bitor intrinsic is already implemented for these types. This method specifically is also already present on unsigned, integral types.

Additionally, this PR rewrites the existing docs for unchecked_disjoint_bitor and adds the must_use attribute to the method.

rustbot · 2025-10-05T10:01:11Z

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

bjoernager · 2025-10-05T10:01:31Z

@rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs

r? libs-api

bjoernager · 2026-01-05T14:18:35Z

r? libs-api

rustbot · 2026-05-20T11:06:13Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

tgross35

Seems reasonable to me but should get a @rust-lang/libs-api okay.

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated

r? tgross35

View changes since this review

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:24:27Z

 }

- /// Same value as `self | other`, but UB if any bit position is set in both inputs.
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming no one bits in common.


"assuming no one bits in common" -> "assuming there are no one bits in common."
Or something like "Computes self | rhs given the precondition that no set bits of the inputs overlap."

tgross35 · 2026-05-27T05:25:47Z

- /// `((a as u32) << 16) | (b as u32)`, that's fine, as the backend will
- /// know those sides of the `|` are disjoint without needing help.
+ /// Practically, this requires that `self | rhs`, `self ^ rhs`, and `self + rhs` all
+ /// yield the same result, allowing for any of the three to be emitted in code gen


Nit: "code gen" -> either "codegen" or "code generation"

What is wrong with "code gen" ? It's already used in the repo: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust%20%22code%20gen%22&type=code.

Most of those hits are part of "code generation" https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Arust-lang%2Frust+%2Fcode+gen%5Cb%2F&type=code. Loosely I think "gen" is considered an abbreviation rather than a word that can stand on its own, but we do consider "codegen" to be one.
Also we have codegen-units, codegen-backend etc. rather than code-gen-units and code-gen-backend.

…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:33:21Z

 if self { Ok(()) } else { Err(f()) }
 }
+
+ /// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.


Suggested change
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming inequality.
/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self | rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.
Right, or no? I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:34:46Z

+ /// #![feature(disjoint_bitor)]
+ ///
+ /// assert_eq!(
+ /// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.


Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.
As above.
View changes since the review

I actually requested this move away from talking about bits with booleans, since I don't think users should need to think about the representation when thinking about values is sufficient. But looks like I gave a bad suggestion here.
So perhaps "has only one true" or "has at most one true"?

Adding a false, false test to the doc would be good too

Suggested change
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:36:51Z

+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.


Suggested change
/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.
As above.
Nit: We generally use American spellings.
View changes since the review

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:37:58Z

+ pub const unsafe fn unchecked_disjoint_bitor(self, rhs: Self) -> Self {
+ assert_unsafe_precondition!(
+ check_language_ub,
+ "bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",


Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",
As above.
View changes since the review

Similarly, maybe "more than one true"

Suggested change
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor two `true` values",

traviscross · 2026-05-31T12:39:18Z

+ (
+ lhs: bool = self,
+ rhs: bool = rhs,
+ ) => lhs != rhs,


Suggested change
) => lhs != rhs,
) => !(lhs && rhs),
Right? As above, I'd expect (false, false) to be valid.
View changes since the review

nia-e · 2026-06-02T15:59:08Z

We discussed this in today's libs-api meeting; we're happy to add these functions. Thanks!

tgross35 · 2026-06-08T22:07:03Z

Just a couple of small remaining review comments

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-06-08T22:07:07Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rust-bors · 2026-07-15T18:49:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159336) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot added T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 5, 2025

rustbot assigned BurntSushi and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 5, 2025

bjoernager mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Tracking Issue for unchecked_disjoint_bitor#135758
Open
3 tasks

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 943d050 to 845a872Compare October 5, 2025 11:05

This comment was marked as outdated.
Sign in to view

rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned BurntSushi Jan 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 845a872 to 39c4367Compare May 20, 2026 11:06

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 39c4367 to ac624b5Compare May 20, 2026 11:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from ac624b5 to 41533feCompare May 20, 2026 11:25

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 41533fe to 4f310faCompare May 20, 2026 11:34

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 4f310fa to c24ec23Compare May 20, 2026 12:12

tgross35 reviewed May 27, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label May 27, 2026

rustbot assigned tgross35 May 27, 2026

rustbot unassigned the8472 May 27, 2026

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from c24ec23 to 315ca01Compare May 28, 2026 11:29

Add 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' method to 'bool', 'i8', 'i16', 'i32', …
7d9b4e4
…'i64', 'i128', and 'isize'; Update existing 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor' docs; Add 'must_use' to 'unchecked_disjoint_bitor';

bjoernager force-pushed the disjoint-bitor branch from 315ca01 to 7d9b4e4Compare May 28, 2026 11:37

traviscross reviewed May 31, 2026
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 8, 2026

clarfonthey removed the I-libs-api-nominated [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] label Jun 9, 2026

clarfonthey added T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs-api [DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE] labels Aug 12, 2026

	/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self \| rhs`, assuming inequality.
	/// Disjoint, bitwise or. Computes `self \| rhs`, assuming at most one is `true`.

	/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
	/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` have no bits in common.

	/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are inequal.
	/// // SAFETY: `false` and `true` are not both `true`.

	/// This results in undefined behaviour if `self` and `rhs` are equal.
	/// This results in undefined behavior if `self` and `rhs` are both `true`.

	"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor equal values",
	"bool::unchecked_disjoint_bitor cannot bitor overlapping ones",

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

bjoernager commented Oct 5, 2025• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 5, 2025

Uh oh!

bjoernager commented Oct 5, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as outdated.

bjoernager commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

tgross35 left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bjoernagerMay 28, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

traviscrossMay 31, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

traviscrossMay 31, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

traviscrossMay 31, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

traviscrossMay 31, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

traviscrossMay 31, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nia-e commented Jun 2, 2026

Uh oh!

tgross35 commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-borsBot commented Jul 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

bjoernager commented Oct 5, 2025•
edited by rustbot
Loading

tgross35 left a comment •
edited by rustbot
Loading

bjoernagerMay 28, 2026•
edited
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

bjoernager commented Oct 5, 2025•
edited by rustbot
Loading

tgross35 left a comment •
edited by rustbot
Loading

bjoernagerMay 28, 2026•
edited
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

traviscrossMay 31, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading