| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Documentation for the following methods
with_capacity
with_capacity_in
with_capacity_and_hasher
reserve
reserve_exact
try_reserve
try_reserve_exact
was inconsistent and often not entirely correct where they existed on the following types
Vec
VecDeque
String
OsString
PathBuf
BinaryHeap
HashSet
HashMap
BufWriter
LineWriter
since the allocator is allowed to allocate more than the requested capacity in all such cases, and will frequently "allocate" much more in the case of zero-sized types (I also checked BufReader, but there the docs appear to be accurate as it appears to actually allocate the exact capacity).
Some effort was made to make the documentation more consistent between types as well.
Fix with_capacity* methods for Vec
Fix *reserve* methods for Vec
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of VecDeque
Fix docs for String::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of String
Fix docs for OsString::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods on OsString
Fix docs for with_capacity* methods on HashSet
Fix docs for *reserve methods of HashSet
Fix docs for with_capacity* methods of HashMap
Fix docs for *reserve methods on HashMap
Fix expect messages about OOM in doctests
Fix docs for BinaryHeap::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of BinaryHeap
Fix typos
Fix docs for with_capacity on BufWriter and LineWriter
Fix consistent use of `hasher` between `HashMap` and `HashSet`
Fix warning in doc test
Add test for capacity of vec with ZST
Fix doc test error
|
|
Add #[rustc_box] and use it inside alloc
This commit adds an alternative content boxing syntax, and uses it inside alloc.
```Rust
#![feature(box_syntax)]
fn foo() {
let foo = box bar;
}
```
is equivalent to
```Rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
fn foo() {
let foo = #[rustc_box] Box::new(bar);
}
```
The usage inside the very performance relevant code in
liballoc is the only remaining relevant usage of box syntax
in the compiler (outside of tests, which are comparatively easy to port).
box syntax was originally designed to be used by all Rust
developers. This introduces a replacement syntax more tailored
to only being used inside the Rust compiler, and with it,
lays the groundwork for eventually removing box syntax.
[Earlier work](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87781#issuecomment-894714878) by `@nbdd0121` to lower `Box::new` to `box` during THIR -> MIR building ran into borrow checker problems, requiring the lowering to be adjusted in a way that led to [performance regressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87781#issuecomment-894872367). The proposed change in this PR lowers `#[rustc_box] Box::new` -> `box` in the AST -> HIR lowering step, which is way earlier in the compiler, and thus should cause less issues both performance wise as well as regarding type inference/borrow checking/etc. Hopefully, future work can move the lowering further back in the compiler, as long as there are no performance regressions.
|
|
Add `#[inline]` to `Vec`'s `Deref/DerefMut`
This should help #97552 (although I haven't verified).
|
|
|
|
alloc: remove repeated word in comment
Linux's `checkpatch.pl` reports:
```txt
#42544: FILE: rust/alloc/vec/mod.rs:2692:
WARNING: Possible repeated word: 'to'
+ // - Elements are :Copy so it's OK to to copy them, without doing
```
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
|
|
Clarify the guarantees of Vec::as_ptr and Vec::as_mut_ptr when there's no allocation
Currently the documentation says they return a pointer to the vector's buffer, which has the implied precondition that the vector allocated some memory. However `Vec`'s documentation also specifies that it won't always allocate, so it's unclear whether the pointer returned is valid in that case. Of course you won't be able to read/write actual bytes to/from it since the capacity is 0, but there's an exception: zero sized read/writes. They are still valid as long as the pointer is not null and the memory it points to wasn't deallocated, but `Vec::as_ptr` and `Vec::as_mut_ptr` don't specify that's not the case. This PR thus specifies they are actually valid for zero sized reads since `Vec` is implemented to hold a dangling pointer in those cases, which is neither null nor was deallocated.
|
|
Linux's `checkpatch.pl` reports:
```txt
#42544: FILE: rust/alloc/vec/mod.rs:2692:
WARNING: Possible repeated word: 'to'
+ // - Elements are :Copy so it's OK to to copy them, without doing
```
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
|
|
|
|
allocation
|
|
Remove impossible panic note from `Vec::append`
Neither the number of elements in a vector can overflow a `usize`, nor
can the amount of elements in two vectors.
|
|
Clarify slice and Vec iteration order
While already being inferable from the doc examples, it wasn't fully specified. This is the only logical way to do a slice iterator, so I think this should be uncontroversial. It also improves the `Vec::into_iter` example to better show the order and that the iterator returns owned values.
|
|
|
|
While already being inferable from the doc examples, it wasn't
fully specified. This is the only logical way to do a slice
iterator.
|
|
r=JohnTitor
Clarify docs for `from_raw_parts` on `Vec` and `String`
Closes #95427
Original safety explanation for `from_raw_parts` was unclear on safety for consuming a C string. This clarifies when doing so is safe.
|
|
This reverts commit 5dd702763ae0e112332a4447171adbed51aeee3d.
|
|
Original safety explanation for from_raw_parts was
unclear on safety for consuming a C string. This
clarifies when doing so is safe.
|
|
Currently it just calls `truncate(0)`. `truncate()` is (a) not marked as
`#[inline]`, and (b) more general than needed for `clear()`.
This commit changes `clear()` to do the work itself. This modest change
was first proposed in rust-lang#74172, where the reviewer rejected it because
there was insufficient evidence that `Vec::clear()`'s performance
mattered enough to justify the change. Recent changes within rustc have
made `Vec::clear()` hot within `macro_parser.rs`, so the change is now
clearly worthwhile.
Although it doesn't show wins on CI perf runs, this seems to be because they
use PGO. But not all platforms currently use PGO. Also, local builds don't use
PGO, and `truncate` sometimes shows up in an over-represented fashion in local
profiles. So local profiling will be made easier by this change.
Note that this will also benefit `String::clear()`, because it just
calls `Vec::clear()`.
Finally, the commit removes the `vec-clear.rs` codegen test. It was
added in #52908. From before then until now, `Vec::clear()` just called
`Vec::truncate()` with a zero length. The body of Vec::truncate() has
changed a lot since then. Now that `Vec::clear()` is doing actual work
itself, and not just calling `Vec::truncate()`, it's not surprising that
its generated code includes a load and an icmp. I think it's reasonable
to remove this test.
|
|
N]>::into_flattened`
|
|
Stabilize feature vec_retain_mut on Vec and VecDeque
Closes #90829
|
|
jhorstmann:fix-double-drop-of-allocator-in-vec-into-iter, r=oli-obk
Fix double drop of allocator in IntoIter impl of Vec
Fixes #95269
The `drop` impl of `IntoIter` reconstructs a `RawVec` from `buf`, `cap` and `alloc`, when that `RawVec` is dropped it also drops the allocator. To avoid dropping the allocator twice we wrap it in `ManuallyDrop` in the `InttoIter` struct.
Note this is my first contribution to the standard library, so I might be missing some details or a better way to solve this.
|
|
|
|
impl From<&[T; N]> and From<&mut [T; N]> for Vec<T>
I really wanted to write:
```rust
fn example(a: impl Into<Vec<u8>>) {}
fn main() {
example(b"raw");
}
```
|
|
Docs: make Vec::from_raw_parts documentation less strict
This is my first PR; be gentle!
In https://users.rust-lang.org/t/why-does-vec-from-raw-parts-require-same-size-and-not-same-size-capacity/73036/2?u=janpaul123 it was suggested to me that I should make a PR to make the documentation of `Vec::from_raw_parts` less strict, since we don't require `T` to have the same size, just `size_of::<T>() * capacity` to be the same, since that is what results in `Layout::size` being the same in `dealloc`, which is really what matters.
Also in https://users.rust-lang.org/t/why-does-vec-from-raw-parts-require-same-size-and-not-same-size-capacity/73036/8?u=janpaul123 it was suggested that it's better to use `slice::from_raw_parts`, which I think is useful advise that could also be mentioned in the docs, so I added that too.
Let me know what you think! :)
|
|
|
|
Neither the number of elements in a vector can overflow a `usize`, nor
can the amount of elements in two vectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is my first PR; be gentle!
In https://users.rust-lang.org/t/why-does-vec-from-raw-parts-require-same-size-and-not-same-size-capacity/73036/2?u=janpaul123 it was suggested to me that I should make a PR to make the documentation of `Vec::from_raw_parts` less strict, since we don't require `T` to have the same size, just `size_of::<T>() * capacity` to be the same, since that is what results in `Layout::size` being the same in `dealloc`, which is really what matters.
Also in https://users.rust-lang.org/t/why-does-vec-from-raw-parts-require-same-size-and-not-same-size-capacity/73036/8?u=janpaul123 it was suggested that it's better to use `slice::from_raw_parts`, which I think is useful advise that could also be mentioned in the docs, so I added that too.
Let me know what you think! :)
|
|
Improve doc wording for retain on some collections
I found the documentation wording on the various retain methods on many collections to be unusual.
I tried to invert the relation by switching `such that` with `for which` .
|
|
|
|
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
|
|
fix typo in btree/vec doc: Self -> self
this pr fixes #92345
the documentation refers to the object the method is called for, not the type, so it should be using the lower case self.
|
|
|
|
Add documentation to more `From::from` implementations.
For users looking at documentation through IDE popups, this gives them relevant information rather than the generic trait documentation wording “Performs the conversion”. For users reading the documentation for a specific type for any reason, this informs them when the conversion may allocate or copy significant memory versus when it is always a move or cheap copy.
Notes on specific cases:
* The new documentation for `From<T> for T` explains that it is not a conversion at all.
* Also documented `impl<T, U> Into<U> for T where U: From<T>`, the other central blanket implementation of conversion.
* The new documentation for construction of maps and sets from arrays of keys mentions the handling of duplicates. Future work could be to do this for *all* code paths that convert an iterable to a map or set.
* I did not add documentation to conversions of a specific error type to a more general error type.
* I did not add documentation to unstable code.
This change was prepared by searching for the text "From<... for" and so may have missed some cases that for whatever reason did not match. I also looked for `Into` impls but did not find any worth documenting by the above criteria.
|
|
Stabilize vec_spare_capacity
Closes #75017
|
|
Closes #75017
|
|
|
|
Switch all libraries to the 2021 edition
The fix for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88638#issuecomment-996620107 is to simply add const-stability for these functions.
r? `@m-ou-se`
Closes #88638.
|
|
|
|
Remove pronunciation guide from Vec<T>
I performed an extremely scientific poll on twitter, and determined this is not how it's pronounced: https://twitter.com/at_tcsc/status/1476643344285581315
|
|
Implement split_at_spare_mut without Deref to a slice so that the spare slice is valid
~I'm not sure I understand what's going on here correctly. And I'm pretty sure this safety comment needs to be changed. I'm just referring to the same thing that `as_mut_ptr_range` does.~ (Thanks `@RalfJung` for the guidance and clearing things up)
I tried to run https://github.com/rust-lang/miri-test-libstd on alloc with -Zmiri-track-raw-pointers, and got a failure on the test `vec::test_extend_from_within`.
I minimized the test failure into this program:
```rust
#![feature(vec_split_at_spare)]
fn main() {
Vec::<i32>::with_capacity(1).split_at_spare_mut();
}
```
The problem is that the existing implementation is actually getting a pointer range where both pointers are derived from the initialized region of the Vec's allocation, but we need the second one to be valid for the region between len and capacity. (thanks Ralf for clearing this up)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In `Vec`, two doc tests are using `MaybeUninit::write` , stabilized in 1.55. This makes docs' usage of `maybe_uninit_extra` feature unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
The previous implementation used slice::as_mut_ptr_range to derive the
pointer for the spare capacity slice. This is invalid, because that
pointer is derived from the initialized region, so it does not have
provenance over the uninitialized region.
|
|
|
