| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
slices: fix ZST slice iterators making up pointers; debug_assert alignment in from_raw_parts
This fixes the problem that we are fabricating pointers out of thin air. I also managed to share more code between the mutable and shared iterators, while reducing the amount of macros.
I am not sure how useful it really is to add a `debug_assert!` in libcore. Everybody gets a release version of that anyway, right? Is there at least a CI job that runs the test suite with a debug version?
Fixes #42789
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also use ident, not expr, to avoid accidental side-effects
|
|
This also changes the IR for nth(), but the new IR actually looks nicer that the old
(and it is one instruction shorter).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
make memrchr use align_offset
I hope I did not screw that up...
Cc @oli-obk who authored the original https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/44537
Fixes #50567 (thanks @bjorn3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change RangeInclusive to a three-field struct.
Fix #45222.
This PR also reverts #48012 (i.e. removed the `try_fold`/`try_rfold` specialization for `RangeInclusive`) because LLVM no longer has trouble recognizing a RangeInclusive loop.
|
|
Fix #45222.
|
|
Add ExactChunks::remainder and ExactChunks::into_remainder
These allow to get the leftover items of the slice that are not being
iterated as part of the iterator due to not filling a complete chunk.
The mutable version consumes the slice because otherwise we would either
a) have to borrow the iterator instead of taking the lifetime of
the underlying slice, which is not what *any* of the other iterator
functions is doing, or
b) would allow returning multiple mutable references to the same data
The current behaviour of consuming the iterator is consistent with
IterMut::into_slice for the normal iterator.
----
This is related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-392685177 and the following comments.
While there the discussion was first about a way to get the "tail" of the iterator (everything from the slice that is still not iterated yet), this gives kind of unintuitive behaviour and is inconsistent with how the other slice iterators work.
Unintuitive because the `next_back` would have no effect on the tail (or otherwise the tail could not include the remainder items), inconsistent because a) generally the idea of the slice iterators seems to be to only ever return items that were not iterated yet (and don't provide a way to access the same item twice) and b) we would return a "flat" `&[T]` slice but the iterator's shape is `&[[T]]` instead, c) the mutable variant would have to borrow from the iterator instead of the underlying slice (all other iterator functions borrow from the underlying slice!)
As such, I've only implemented functions to get the remainder. This also allows the implementation to be completely safe still (and around slices instead of raw pointers), while getting the tail would either be inefficient or would have to be implemented around raw pointers.
CC @kerollmops
|
|
Better docs for copy_from_slice & clone_from_slice
I copy-pasted the text from clone_from_slice to copy_from_slice :smile:
@steveklabnik feel free to suggest changes.
edit: closes #49769
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bootstrap from 1.28.0 beta
|
|
|
|
Use assert_eq! in copy_from_slice
This will print both lengths when the assertion fails instead of just saying that they're different.
Output of current stable and nightly (modulo the exact line number):
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'destination and source slices have different lengths', libcore/slice/mod.rs:1645:9
```
Output after this PR:
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
left: `123`,
right: `456`: destination and source slices have different lengths', libcore/slice/mod.rs:1645:9
```
Note that I have not run the tests locally.
|
|
|
|
These were stabilized in March 2018's #47813, and are the Preferred Way
to Do It going forward (q.v. #51043).
|
|
|
|
This will print both lengths when the assertion fails instead of just saying that they're different.
|
|
It elaborates over why we have to slice the 4-size src to 2-size (same as dst).
|
|
|
|
|
|
These allow to get the leftover items of the slice that are not being
iterated as part of the iterator due to not filling a complete chunk.
The mutable version consumes the slice because otherwise we would either
a) have to borrow the iterator instead of taking the lifetime of
the underlying slice, which is not what *any* of the other iterator
functions is doing, or
b) would allow returning multiple mutable references to the same data
The current behaviour of consuming the iterator is consistent with
IterMut::into_slice for the normal iterator.
|
|
docs order
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-392532855
|
|
Various minor slice iterator cleanups
See individual commits
|
|
|
|
These don't exist anymore.
|
|
|
|
Fixes #35729
According to recommendations in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35729#issuecomment-377784884
|
|
|
|
Stabilize feature from_ref
Function `from_ref_mut` is now renamed to `from_mut`, as discussed in #45703.
Closes #45703.
r? @SimonSapin
|
|
|
|
|
|
When building stage0 a warning will be triggered when compiling libcore
due to align_to_offsets not being used.
|
|
Keep only the language item. This removes some indirection and makes
codegen worse for debug builds, but simplifies code significantly, which
is a good tradeoff to make, in my opinion.
Besides, the codegen can be improved even further with some constant
evaluation improvements that we expect to happen in the future.
|
|
|
|
This is necessary if we want to implement `[T]::align_to` and is more
useful in general.
This implementation effort has begun during the All Hands and represents
a month of my futile efforts to do any sort of maths. Luckily, I
found the very very nice Chris McDonald (cjm) on IRC who figured out the
core formulas for me! All the thanks for existence of this PR go to
them!
Anyway… Those formulas were mangled by yours truly into the arcane forms
you see here to squeeze out the best assembly possible on most of the
modern architectures (x86 and ARM were evaluated in practice). I mean,
just look at it: *one actual* modulo operation and everything else is
just the cheap single cycle ops! Admitedly, the naive solution might be
faster in some common scenarios, but this code absolutely butchers the
naive solution on the worst case scenario.
Alas, the result of this arcane magic also means that the code pretty
heavily relies on the preconditions holding true and breaking those
preconditions will unleash the UB-est of all UBs! So don’t.
|
|
|
|
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~~)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
