sync thread_local key conditions exactly with what the macro uses

[RalfJung]

This makes the cfg in mod.rs syntactically the same as those in local.rs.

I don't think this should actually change anything, but seems better to be consistent?
I looked into this due to #102549, but this PR would make it less likely that __OsLocalKeyInner is going to get provided, so this cannot help with that issue.

r? @thomcc

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[thomcc]

Yep, LGTM.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0910bd0 has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Dylan-DPC]

failed in rollup

@bors r-

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r-
Failed in #102801 (comment)

[RalfJung]

@bors rollup=iffy r=thomcc

[bors]

📌 Commit 053f834bdbbffe755f6206598a160021f647ef4f has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[RalfJung]

@bors rollup=iffy r=thomcc

[bors]

📌 Commit 527fa5f683381f5d9fd721c7368c8930db8f91fc has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[RalfJung]

@thomcc I realized there is a smarter way to avoid the warning about __FastLocalKeyInner being unused -- and added that to this PR, since it touches that code anyway. Could you take a look?

[RalfJung]

@bors r-
@rustbot ready

[RalfJung]

@bors r=thomcc

[bors]

📌 Commit 5218e24 has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5218e24 with merge 7a58723a62744a73f1a94066a93e981f82b6a3f3...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

#######################################################                   76.8%curl: (56) OpenSSL SSL_read: Connection reset by peer, errno 104

error: failed to download llvm from ci

help: old builds get deleted after a certain time
help: if trying to compile an old commit of rustc, disable `download-ci-llvm` in config.toml:
[llvm]
download-ci-llvm = false

Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:56

[RalfJung]

@bors retry failed to download llvm from ci

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5218e24 with merge 5819f41...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: thomcc
Pushing 5819f41 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5819f41): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.2%, -0.9%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[1.7%, 4.0%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-1.6%, 4.0%]	4

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²