| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Attempting to fix https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/jobs/377407894 via some
selective ignoring tests
|
|
Give SliceIndex impls a test suite of girth befitting the implementation (and fix a UTF8 boundary check)
So one day I was writing something in my codebase that basically amounted to `impl SliceIndex for (Bound<usize>, Bound<usize>)`, and I said to myself:
*Boy, gee, golly! I never realized bounds checking was so tricky!*
At some point when I had around 60 lines of tests for it, I decided to go see how the standard library does it to see if I missed any edge cases. ...That's when I discovered that libcore only had about 40 lines of tests for slicing altogether, and none of them even used `..=`.
---
This PR includes:
* **Literally the first appearance of the word `get_unchecked_mut` in any directory named `test` or `tests`.**
* Likewise the first appearance of `get_mut` used with _any type of range argument_ in these directories.
* Tests for the panics on overflow with `..=`.
* I wanted to test on `[(); usize::MAX]` as well but that takes linear time in debug mode </3
* A horrible and ugly test-generating macro for the `should_panic` tests that increases the DRYness by a single order of magnitude (which IMO wasn't enough, but I didn't want to go any further and risk making the tests inaccessible to next guy).
* Same stuff for str!
* Actually, the existing `str` tests were pretty good. I just helped filled in the holes.
* [A fix for the bug it caught](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50002). (only one ~~sadly~~)
|
|
Introduce RangeInclusive::{new, start, end} methods and make the fields private.
cc #49022
|
|
|
|
Added new()/start()/end() methods to RangeInclusive.
Changed the lowering of `..=` to use RangeInclusive::new().
|
|
|
|
m*n lines of implementation deserves m*n lines of tests
|
|
GitHub users: I think you can add ?w=1 to the url
for a vastly cleaner whitespace-ignoring diff
|
|
This is in the matter of RFC 1940 and tracking issue #43302.
|
|
and add one for non-mut slicing since I touched that method too
|
|
|
|
Fixes #49608
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the UnicodeStr trait into StrExt
|
|
|
|
|
|
This permits easier iteration without having to worry about warnings
being denied.
Fixes #49517
|
|
Holy cow that's a lot of `cfg(stage0)` removed and a lot of new stable language
features!
|
|
Stabilize String::replace_range
Fixes #44643
|
|
Closes #22181, #27779
|
|
Fixes #44643
|
|
The stable reexport `std::collections::Bound` is now deprecated.
Another deprecated reexport could be added in `alloc`,
but that crate is unstable.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 17 pull requests
- Successful merges: #48706, #48875, #48892, #48922, #48957, #48959, #48961, #48965, #49007, #49024, #49042, #49050, #48853, #48990, #49037, #49049, #48972
- Failed merges:
|
|
|
|
Stabilize inclusive range (`..=`)
Stabilize the followings:
* `inclusive_range` — The `std::ops::RangeInclusive` and `std::ops::RangeInclusiveTo` types, except its fields (tracked by #49022 separately).
* `inclusive_range_syntax` — The `a..=b` and `..=b` expression syntax
* `dotdoteq_in_patterns` — Using `a..=b` in a pattern
cc #28237
r? @rust-lang/lang
|
|
|
|
Stabilize the syntax `a..=b` and `..=b`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41891
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
These are basically modified copies of the chunks/chunks_mut tests.
|
|
This way more useful information is printed if the test ever fails.
|
|
Deprecate [T]::rotate in favor of [T]::rotate_{left,right}.
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. The current `rotate`
implementation takes an unsigned integer argument which doesn't allow
the negative number behavior.
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Relates to rust-lang/rfcs#2140 - drain_filter for all collections
`drain_filter` is implemented instead of `LinkedList::remove_if` based
on review feedback.
|
|
allocators: don’t assume MIN_ALIGN for small sizes
See individual commit messages.
|
|
|
