about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/liballoc/tests/slice.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2019-04-17test sort_unstable in MiriRalf Jung-3/+3
2019-04-16Miri now supports entropy, but is still slowRalf Jung-6/+15
2019-03-10enabled too many testsRalf Jung-0/+2
2019-03-10we can now skip should_panic tests with the libtest harnessRalf Jung-18/+0
2019-02-13review failures in heap, slice, vecRalf Jung-2/+20
2019-02-09Rollup merge of #58275 - RalfJung:miri-test-libcore, r=Mark-SimulacrumMazdak Farrokhzad-0/+2
libcore, liballoc: disable tests in Miri I am going to run the libcore and liballoc unit test suites in Miri. Not all tests pass. This PR disables a whole bunch of tests when running in Miri, to get us to a baseline from which I can investigate failures. Cc @SimonSapin @alexcrichton
2019-02-07disable tests in MiriRalf Jung-0/+2
2019-02-03liballoc: revert nested imports style changes.Mazdak Farrokhzad-15/+11
2019-02-02liballoc: refactor & fix some imports.Mazdak Farrokhzad-13/+16
2019-01-26Replace deprecated ATOMIC_INIT constsMark Rousskov-2/+2
2018-12-25Remove licensesMark Rousskov-10/+0
2018-12-11std: Depend directly on crates.io cratesAlex Crichton-2/+2
Ever since we added a Cargo-based build system for the compiler the standard library has always been a little special, it's never been able to depend on crates.io crates for runtime dependencies. This has been a result of various limitations, namely that Cargo doesn't understand that crates from crates.io depend on libcore, so Cargo tries to build crates before libcore is finished. I had an idea this afternoon, however, which lifts the strategy from #52919 to directly depend on crates.io crates from the standard library. After all is said and done this removes a whopping three submodules that we need to manage! The basic idea here is that for any crate `std` depends on it adds an *optional* dependency on an empty crate on crates.io, in this case named `rustc-std-workspace-core`. This crate is overridden via `[patch]` in this repository to point to a local crate we write, and *that* has a `path` dependency on libcore. Note that all `no_std` crates also depend on `compiler_builtins`, but if we're not using submodules we can publish `compiler_builtins` to crates.io and all crates can depend on it anyway! The basic strategy then looks like: * The standard library (or some transitive dep) decides to depend on a crate `foo`. * The standard library adds ```toml [dependencies] foo = { version = "0.1", features = ['rustc-dep-of-std'] } ``` * The crate `foo` has an optional dependency on `rustc-std-workspace-core` * The crate `foo` has an optional dependency on `compiler_builtins` * The crate `foo` has a feature `rustc-dep-of-std` which activates these crates and any other necessary infrastructure in the crate. A sample commit for `dlmalloc` [turns out to be quite simple][commit]. After that all `no_std` crates should largely build "as is" and still be publishable on crates.io! Notably they should be able to continue to use stable Rust if necessary, since the `rename-dependency` feature of Cargo is soon stabilizing. As a proof of concept, this commit removes the `dlmalloc`, `libcompiler_builtins`, and `libc` submodules from this repository. Long thorns in our side these are now gone for good and we can directly depend on crates.io! It's hoped that in the long term we can bring in other crates as necessary, but for now this is largely intended to simply make it easier to manage these crates and remove submodules. This should be a transparent non-breaking change for all users, but one possible stickler is that this almost for sure breaks out-of-tree `std`-building tools like `xargo` and `cargo-xbuild`. I think it should be relatively easy to get them working, however, as all that's needed is an entry in the `[patch]` section used to build the standard library. Hopefully we can work with these tools to solve this problem! [commit]: https://github.com/alexcrichton/dlmalloc-rs/commit/28ee12db813a3b650a7c25d1c36d2c17dcb88ae3
2018-12-07Various minor/cosmetic improvements to codeAlexander Regueiro-3/+3
2018-10-18Add slice::rchunks(), rchunks_mut(), rchunks_exact() and rchunks_exact_mut()Sebastian Dröge-2/+114
These work exactly like the normal chunks iterators but start creating chunks from the end of the slice. See #55177 for the tracking issue
2018-09-24Rename slice::exact_chunks() to slice::chunks_exact()Sebastian Dröge-15/+15
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-403090815 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-424053547
2018-09-04Breaking change upgradesMark Rousskov-2/+3
2018-07-27Incorporate a stray testShotaro Yamada-0/+11
2018-06-01add more join testsEmerentius-0/+9
old tests cover the new fast path of str joining already this adds tests for joining into Strings with long separators (>4 byte) and for joining into Vec<T>, T: Clone + !Copy. Vec<T: Copy> will be specialised when specialisation type inference bugs are fixed.
2018-04-28stabilize `#[must_use]` for functions and must-use operatorsZack M. Davis-0/+1
This is in the matter of RFC 1940 and tracking issue #43302.
2018-03-27Rollup merge of #48639 - varkor:sort_by_key-cached, r=blusskennytm-3/+16
Add slice::sort_by_cached_key as a memoised sort_by_key At present, `slice::sort_by_key` calls its key function twice for each comparison that is made. When the key function is expensive (which can often be the case when `sort_by_key` is chosen over `sort_by`), this can lead to very suboptimal behaviour. To address this, I've introduced a new slice method, `sort_by_cached_key`, which has identical semantic behaviour to `sort_by_key`, except that it guarantees the key function will only be called once per element. Where there are `n` elements and the key function is `O(m)`: - `slice::sort_by_cached_key` time complexity is `O(m n log m n)`, compared to `slice::sort_by_key`'s `O(m n + n log n)`. - `slice::sort_by_cached_key` space complexity remains at `O(n + m)`. (Technically, it now reserves a slice of size `n`, whereas before it reserved a slice of size `n/2`.) `slice::sort_unstable_by_key` has not been given an analogue, as it is important that unstable sorts are in-place, which is not a property that is guaranteed here. However, this also means that `slice::sort_unstable_by_key` is likely to be slower than `slice::sort_by_cached_key` when the key function does not have negligible complexity. We might want to explore this trade-off further in the future. Benchmarks (for a vector of 100 `i32`s): ``` # Lexicographic: `|x| x.to_string()` test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 112,638 ns/iter (+/- 19,563) test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 15,038 ns/iter (+/- 4,814) # Identity: `|x| *x` test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 1,346 ns/iter (+/- 238) test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,839 ns/iter (+/- 765) # Power: `|x| x.pow(31)` test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 3,624 ns/iter (+/- 738) test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,997 ns/iter (+/- 311) # Abs: `|x| x.abs()` test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 1,546 ns/iter (+/- 174) test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,668 ns/iter (+/- 790) ``` (So it seems functions that are single operations do perform slightly worse with this method, but for pretty much any more complex key, you're better off with this optimisation.) I've definitely found myself using expensive keys in the past and wishing this optimisation was made (e.g. for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/47415). This feels like both desirable and expected behaviour, at the small cost of slightly more stack allocation and minute degradation in performance for extremely trivial keys. Resolves #34447.
2018-03-19Add stability test for sort_by_cached_keyvarkor-3/+8
2018-03-17update FIXME(#5244) to point to RFC 1109 (Non-Copy array creation ergonomics)Niv Kaminer-1/+1
2018-03-16Add sort_by_cached_key methodvarkor-3/+6
2018-03-16Add a test for sort_by_keyvarkor-0/+5
2018-03-11Update Cargo submoduleAlex Crichton-0/+165
Required moving all fulldeps tests depending on `rand` to different locations as now there's multiple `rand` crates that can't be implicitly linked against.
2018-01-15Rollup merge of #47126 - sdroege:exact-chunks, r=blusskennytm-2/+58
Add slice::ExactChunks and ::ExactChunksMut iterators These guarantee that always the requested slice size will be returned and any leftoever elements at the end will be ignored. It allows llvm to get rid of bounds checks in the code using the iterator. This is inspired by the same iterators provided by ndarray. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115 I'll add unit tests for all this if the general idea and behaviour makes sense for everybody. Also see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-354715511 for an example what this improves.
2018-01-13Add unit tests for exact_chunks/exact_chunks_mutSebastian Dröge-0/+56
These are basically modified copies of the chunks/chunks_mut tests.
2018-01-13Use assert_eq!() instead of assert!(a == b) in slice chunks_mut() unit testSebastian Dröge-2/+2
This way more useful information is printed if the test ever fails.
2017-12-24Deprecate [T]::rotate in favor of [T]::rotate_{left,right}.Corey Farwell-8/+43
Background ========== Slices currently have an unstable [`rotate`] method which rotates elements in the slice to the _left_ N positions. [Here][tracking] is the tracking issue for this unstable feature. ```rust let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']; a.rotate(2); assert_eq!(a, ['c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'a', 'b']); ``` Proposal ======== Deprecate the [`rotate`] method and introduce `rotate_left` and `rotate_right` methods. ```rust let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']; a.rotate_left(2); assert_eq!(a, ['c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'a', 'b']); ``` ```rust let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f']; a.rotate_right(2); assert_eq!(a, ['e', 'f', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd']); ``` Justification ============= I used this method today for my first time and (probably because I’m a naive westerner who reads LTR) was surprised when the docs mentioned that elements get rotated in a left-ward direction. I was in a situation where I needed to shift elements in a right-ward direction and had to context switch from the main problem I was working on and think how much to rotate left in order to accomplish the right-ward rotation I needed. Ruby’s `Array.rotate` shifts left-ward, Python’s `deque.rotate` shifts right-ward. Both of their implementations allow passing negative numbers to shift in the opposite direction respectively. Introducing `rotate_left` and `rotate_right` would: - remove ambiguity about direction (alleviating need to read docs 😉) - make it easier for people who need to rotate right [`rotate`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.rotate [tracking]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41891
2017-11-08std: Remove `rand` crate and moduleAlex Crichton-1/+2
This commit removes the `rand` crate from the standard library facade as well as the `__rand` module in the standard library. Neither of these were used in any meaningful way in the standard library itself. The only need for randomness in libstd is to initialize the thread-local keys of a `HashMap`, and that unconditionally used `OsRng` defined in the standard library anyway. The cruft of the `rand` crate and the extra `rand` support in the standard library makes libstd slightly more difficult to port to new platforms, namely WebAssembly which doesn't have any randomness at all (without interfacing with JS). The purpose of this commit is to clarify and streamline randomness in libstd, focusing on how it's only required in one location, hashmap seeds. Note that the `rand` crate out of tree has almost always been a drop-in replacement for the `rand` crate in-tree, so any usage (accidental or purposeful) of the crate in-tree should switch to the `rand` crate on crates.io. This then also has the further benefit of avoiding duplication (mostly) between the two crates!
2017-06-24Improve sort tests and benchmarksStjepan Glavina-12/+38
2017-06-13Merge crate `collections` into `alloc`Murarth-0/+1225