| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: split off most code of remove and split_off
Putting map.rs on a diet, in addition to #77851.
r? @dtolnay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: refactor Entry out of map.rs into its own file
btree/map.rs is approaching the 3000 line mark, splitting out the entry
code buys about 500 lines of headroom.
I've created this PR because the changes I've made in #77438 will push `map.rs` over the 3000 line limit and cause tidy to complain.
I picked `Entry` to factor out because it feels less tightly coupled to the rest of `BTreeMap` than the various iterator implementations.
Related: #60302
|
|
BTreeMap: improve gdb introspection of BTreeMap with ZST keys or values
I accidentally pushed an earlier revision in #77788: it changes the index of tuples for BTreeSet from ""[{}]".format(i) to "key{}".format(i). Which doesn't seem to make the slightest difference on my linux box nor on CI. In fact, gdb doesn't make any distinction between "key{}" and "val{}" for a BTreeMap either, leading to confusing output if you test more. But easy to improve.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: type-specific variants of node_as_mut and cast_unchecked
Improves debug checking and shortens some expressions. Extracted from #77408
|
|
btree/map.rs is approaching the 3000 line mark, splitting out the entry
code buys about 500 lines of headroom
|
|
BTreeMap: comment why drain_filter's size_hint is somewhat pessimistic
The `size_hint` of the `DrainFilter` iterator doesn't adjust as you iterate. This hardly seems important to me, but there has been a comparable PR #64383 in the past. I guess a scenario is that you first iterate half the map manually and keep most of the key/value pairs in the map, and then tell the predicate to drain most of the key/value pairs and `.collect` the iterator over the remaining half of the map.
I am totally ambivalent whether this is better or not.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
Remove `Box::leak_with_alloc`
Add leak-test for box with allocator
Rename `AllocErr` to `AllocError` in leak-test
Add `Box::alloc` and adjust examples to use the new API
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: refactoring around edges, missed spots
Tweaks from #77244 (and more) that are really inconsistencies in #77005.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
r=Mark-Simulacrum
BTreeMap: admit the existence of leaf edges in comments
The btree code is ambiguous about leaf edges (i.e., edges within leaf nodes). Iteration relies on them heavily, but some of the comments suggest there are no leaf edges (extracted from #77025)
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
BTreeMap: complete the compile-time test_variance test case
Some of the items added to the new `test_sync` belonged in the old `test_variance` as well. And fixed inconsistent paths to nearby modules.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
BTreeMap: document DrainFilterInner better
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix Debug implementations of some of the HashMap and BTreeMap iterator types
HashMap's `ValuesMut`, BTreeMaps `ValuesMut`, IntoValues and `IntoKeys` structs were printing both keys and values on their Debug implementations. But they are iterators over either keys or values. Irrelevant values should not be visible. With this PR, they only show relevant fields.
This fixes #75297.
[Here's an example code.](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=0c79356ed860e347a0c1a205616f93b7) This prints this on nightly:
```
ValuesMut { inner: IterMut { range: [(1, "hello"), (2, "goodbye")], length: 2 } }
IntoKeys { inner: [(1, "hello"), (2, "goodbye")] }
IntoValues { inner: [(1, "hello"), (2, "goodbye")] }
[(2, "goodbye"), (1, "hello")]
```
After the patch this example prints these instead:
```
["hello", "goodbye"]
["hello", "goodbye"]
[1, 2]
["hello", "goodbye"]
```
I didn't add test cases for them, since I couldn't see any tests for Debug implementations anywhere. But please let me know if I should add it to a specific place.
r? @dtolnay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: keep an eye out on the size of the main components
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
Previously, `BTreeMap` tried to link to `crate::collections`, intending
for the link to go to `std/collections/index.html`. But `BTreeMap` is
defined in `alloc`, so after the fix in the previous commit, the links
instead went to `alloc/collections/index.html`, which has almost no
information.
This changes it to link to `index.html`, which only works when viewing
from `std::collections::BTreeMap`, the most common place to visit the
docs. Fixing it to work from anywhere would require the docs for
`std::collections` to be duplicated in `alloc::collections`, which in
turn would require HashMap to be `alloc` for intra-doc links to work
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74481).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap: code readability tweaks
Gathered over the past months
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
Move to intra-doc links in collections/btree/map.rs and collections/linked_list.rs
Helps with #75080.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc, A-intra-doc-links
|
|
Test and fix Send and Sync traits of BTreeMap artefacts
Fixes #76686.
I'm not quite sure what all this implies. E.g. comparing with the definitions for `NodeRef` in node.rs, maybe an extra bound `T: 'a` is useful for something. The test compiles on stable/beta (apart from `drain_filter`) so I bet `Sync` is equally desirable.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=jonas-schievink
Remove internal and unstable MaybeUninit::UNINIT.
Looks like it is no longer necessary, as `uninit_array()` can be used instead in the few cases where it was needed.
(I wanted to just add `#[doc(hidden)]` to remove clutter from the documentation, but looks like it can just be removed entirely.)
|
|
BTreeMap: move up reference to map's root from NodeRef
Since the introduction of `NodeRef` years ago, it also contained a mutable reference to the owner of the root node of the tree (somewhat disguised as *const). Its intent is to be used only when the rest of the `NodeRef` is no longer needed. Moving this to where it's actually used, thought me 2 things:
- Some sort of "postponed mutable reference" is required in most places that it is/was used, and that's exactly where we also need to store a reference to the length (number of elements) of the tree, for the same reason. The length reference can be a normal reference, because the tree code does not care about tree length (just length per node).
- It's downright obfuscation in `from_sorted_iter` (transplanted to #75329)
- It's one of the reasons for the scary notice on `reborrow_mut`, the other one being addressed in #73971.
This does repeat the raw pointer code in a few places, but it could be bundled up with the length reference.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it is no longer necessary, as uninit_array() can be used
instead in the few cases where it was needed.
|
|
|
