| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
The sentence exists to highlight the existence of a
performance footgun of repeated calls of the
reserve_exact function.
|
|
Recommend `swap_remove` in `Vec::remove` docs
I was able to increase the performance (by 20%!) of my project by changing a `Vec::remove` call to `Vec::swap_remove` in a hot function. I think we should explicitly put a note in the Vec::remove docs to guide people in the right direction so they don't make a similar oversight.
|
|
Track caller of Vec::remove()
`vec.remove(invalid)` doesn't print a helpful source position:
> thread 'main' panicked at 'removal index (is 99) should be < len (is 1)', **library/alloc/src/vec/mod.rs:1379:13**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removes the implementations that depend on the user-definable trait `Copy`.
|
|
|
|
Stabilize `impl From<[(K, V); N]> for HashMap` (and friends)
In addition to allowing HashMap to participate in Into/From conversion, this adds the long-requested ability to use constructor-like syntax for initializing a HashMap:
```rust
let map = HashMap::from([
(1, 2),
(3, 4),
(5, 6)
]);
```
This addition is highly motivated by existing precedence, e.g. it is already possible to similarly construct a Vec from a fixed-size array:
```rust
let vec = Vec::from([1, 2, 3]);
```
...and it is already possible to collect a Vec of tuples into a HashMap (and vice-versa):
```rust
let vec = Vec::from([(1, 2)]);
let map: HashMap<_, _> = vec.into_iter().collect();
let vec: Vec<(_, _)> = map.into_iter().collect();
```
...and of course it is likewise possible to collect a fixed-size array of tuples into a HashMap ([but not vice-versa just yet](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/81615)):
```rust
let arr = [(1, 2)];
let map: HashMap<_, _> = std::array::IntoIter::new(arr).collect();
```
Therefore this addition seems like a no-brainer.
As for any impl, this would be insta-stable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iterators contain arbitrary code which may panic. Unsafe code has to be
careful to do its state updates at the right point between calls
that may panic.
|
|
This method on the Iterator trait is doc(hidden), and about half of
implementations were doc(hidden). This adds the attribute to the
remaining implementations.
|
|
Mention the `Borrow` guarantee on the `Hash` implementations for Arrays and `Vec`
To remind people like me who forget about it and send PRs to make them different, and to (probably) get a test failure if the code is changed to no longer uphold it.
|
|
To remind people like me who forget about it and send PRs to make them different, and to (probably) get a test failure if the code is changed to no longer uphold it.
|
|
Update standard library for IntoIterator implementation of arrays
This PR partially resolves issue #84513 of updating the standard library part.
I haven't found any remaining doctest examples which are using iterators over e.g. &i32 instead of just i32 in the standard library. Can anyone point me to them if there's remaining any?
Thanks!
r? ```@m-ou-se```
|
|
Document `From` impls for cow.rs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix a typo
See also: #85737
|
|
|
|
Due to a performance regression that didn't show up in the original perf run
this reverts commit 9111b8ae9793f18179a1336417618fc07a9cac85, reversing
changes made to 9a700d2947f2d7f97a2c0dfca3117a8dcc255bdd.
|
|
Enable Vec's calloc optimization for Option<NonZero>
Someone on discord noticed that `vec![None::<NonZeroU32>; N]` wasn't getting the optimization, so here's a PR 🙃
We can certainly do this in the standard library because we know for sure this is ok, but I think it's also a necessary consequence of documented guarantees like those in https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/#representation and https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/num/struct.NonZeroU32.html
It feels weird to do this without adding a test, but I wasn't sure where that would belong. Is it worth adding codegen tests for these?
|
|
|
|
Add `TrustedRandomAccess` specialization for `Vec::extend()`
This should do roughly the same as the `TrustedLen` specialization but result in less IR by using `__iterator_get_unchecked`
instead of `Iterator::for_each`
Conflicting specializations are manually prioritized by grouping them under yet another helper trait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For certain sorts of systems, programming, it's deemed essential that
all allocation failures be explicitly handled where they occur. For
example, see Linus Torvald's opinion in [1]. Merely not calling global
panic handlers, or always `try_reserving` first (for vectors), is not
deemed good enough, because the mere presence of the global OOM handlers
is burdens static analysis.
One option for these projects to use rust would just be to skip `alloc`,
rolling their own allocation abstractions. But this would, in my
opinion be a real shame. `alloc` has a few `try_*` methods already, and
we could easily have more. Features like custom allocator support also
demonstrate and existing to support diverse use-cases with the same
abstractions.
A natural way to add such a feature flag would a Cargo feature, but
there are currently uncertainties around how std library crate's Cargo
features may or not be stable, so to avoid any risk of stabilizing by
mistake we are going with a more low-level "raw cfg" token, which
cannot be interacted with via Cargo alone.
Note also that since there is no notion of "default cfg tokens" outside
of Cargo features, we have to invert the condition from
`global_oom_handling` to to `not(no_global_oom_handling)`. This breaks
the monotonicity that would be important for a Cargo feature (i.e.
turning on more features should never break compatibility), but it
doesn't matter for raw cfg tokens which are not intended to be
"constraint solved" by Cargo or anything else.
To support this use-case we create a new feature, "global-oom-handling",
on by default, and put the global OOM handler infra and everything else
it that depends on it behind it. By default, nothing is changed, but
users concerned about global handling can make sure it is disabled, and
be confident that all OOM handling is local and explicit.
For this first iteration, non-flat collections are outright disabled.
`Vec` and `String` don't yet have `try_*` allocation methods, but are
kept anyways since they can be oom-safely created "from parts", and we
hope to add those `try_` methods in the future.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wh_sNLoz84AUUzuqXEsYH35u=8HV3vK-jbRbJ_B-JjGrg@mail.gmail.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should do roughly the same as the TrustedLen specialization
but result in less IR by using __iterator_get_unchecked
instead of iterator.for_each.
|
|
Fix double-drop in `Vec::from_iter(vec.into_iter())` specialization when items drop during panic
This fixes the double-drop but it leaves a behavioral difference compared to the default implementation intact: In the default implementation the source and the destination vec are separate objects, so they get dropped separately. Here they share an allocation and the latter only exists as a pointer into the former. So if dropping the former panics then this fix will leak more items than the default implementation would. Is this acceptable or should the specialization also mimic the default implementation's drops-during-panic behavior?
Fixes #83618
`@rustbot` label T-libs-impl
|
|
|
|
|
|
may not -> might not
may not -> might not
"may not" has two possible meanings:
1. A command: "You may not stay up past your bedtime."
2. A fact that's only sometimes true: "Some cities may not have bike lanes."
In some cases, the meaning is ambiguous: "Some cars may not have snow
tires." (do the cars *happen* to not have snow tires, or is it
physically impossible for them to have snow tires?)
This changes places where the standard library uses the "description of
fact" meaning to say "might not" instead.
This is just `std::vec` for now - if you think this is a good idea I can
convert the rest of the standard library.
|
|
"may not" has two possible meanings:
1. A command: "You may not stay up past your bedtime."
2. A fact that's only sometimes true: "Some cities may not have bike lanes."
In some cases, the meaning is ambiguous: "Some cars may not have snow
tires." (do the cars *happen* to not have snow tires, or is it
physically impossible for them to have snow tires?)
This changes places where the standard library uses the "description of
fact" meaning to say "might not" instead.
This is just `std::vec` for now - if you think this is a good idea I can
convert the rest of the standard library.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of #51430
|