| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Some things like the unwinders and system APIs are not fully conformant,
this only covers a lot of low-hanging fruit.
|
|
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! :)
|
|
ChayimFriedman2:allow-comparing-vecs-with-different-allocators, r=dtolnay
Allow comparing `Vec`s with different allocators using `==`
See https://stackoverflow.com/q/71021633/7884305.
I did not changed the `PartialOrd` impl too because it was not generic already (didn't support `Vec<T> <=> Vec<U> where T: PartialOrd<U>`).
Does it needs tests?
I don't think this will hurt type inference much because the default allocator is usually not inferred (`new()` specifies it directly, and even with other allocators, you pass the allocator to `new_in()` so the compiler usually knows the type).
I think this requires FCP since the impls are already stable.
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Daniel Henry-Mantilla <daniel.henry.mantilla@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closes #48994
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimize `vec::retain` performance
This simply moves the loops into the inner function which leads to better results.
```
old:
test vec::bench_retain_100000 ... bench: 203,828 ns/iter (+/- 2,101)
test vec::bench_retain_iter_100000 ... bench: 63,324 ns/iter (+/- 12,305)
test vec::bench_retain_whole_100000 ... bench: 42,989 ns/iter (+/- 291)
new:
test vec::bench_retain_100000 ... bench: 42,180 ns/iter (+/- 451)
test vec::bench_retain_iter_100000 ... bench: 65,167 ns/iter (+/- 11,971)
test vec::bench_retain_whole_100000 ... bench: 33,736 ns/iter (+/- 12,404)
```
Measured on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, Zen2
Fixes #91497
|
|
fixes #91772
|
|
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #91668 (Remove the match on `ErrorKind::Other`)
- #91678 (Add tests fixed by #90023)
- #91679 (Move core/stream/stream/mod.rs to core/stream/stream.rs)
- #91681 (fix typo in `intrinsics::raw_eq` docs)
- #91686 (Fix `Vec::reserve_exact` documentation)
- #91697 (Delete Utf8Lossy::from_str)
- #91706 (Add unstable book entries for parts of asm that are not being stabilized)
- #91709 (Replace iterator-based set construction by *Set::From<[T; N]>)
- #91716 (Improve x.py logging and defaults a bit more)
- #91747 (Add pierwill to .mailmap)
- #91755 (Fix since attribute for const_linked_list_new feature)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Fix `Vec::reserve_exact` documentation
The documentation previously said the new capacity cannot overflow `usize`, but in fact it cannot exceed `isize::MAX`.
|
|
Fix Vec::extend_from_slice docs
`other` is a slice not a vector.
|
|
replace vec::Drain drop loops with drop_in_place
The `Drain::drop` implementation came up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82185#issuecomment-789584796 as potentially interfering with other optimization work due its widespread use somewhere in `println!`
`@rustbot` label T-libs-impl
|
|
The documentation previously said the new capacity cannot overflow `usize`, but in fact it cannot exceed `isize::MAX`.
|
