If `Vec::push`'s capacity check fails it calls `RawVec::reserve`, which
then also does a capacity check.
This commit introduces `reserve_for_push` which skips the redundant
capacity check, for some slight compile time speed-ups.
I tried lots of minor variations on this, e.g. different inlining
attributes. This was the best one I could find.
Avoid allocations and copying in Vec::leak
The [`Vec::leak`] method (#62195) is currently implemented by calling `Vec::into_boxed_slice` and `Box::leak`. This shrinks the vector before leaking it, which potentially causes a reallocation and copies the vector's contents.
By avoiding the conversion to `Box`, we can instead leak the vector without any expensive operations, just by returning a slice reference and forgetting the `Vec`. Users who *want* to shrink the vector first can still do so by calling `shrink_to_fit` explicitly.
**Note:** This could break code that uses `Box::from_raw` to “un-leak” the slice returned by `Vec::leak`. However, the `Vec::leak` docs explicitly forbid this, so such code is already incorrect.
[`Vec::leak`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.leak
Add truncate note to Vec::resize
A very minor addition to the `Vec::resize` documentation to point out the `truncate` method.
When I was searching for something matching `truncate` I managed to miss it, along with some colleagues. We later found it by chance. We did find `resize` however, so I was hoping to point it out in the documentation.
Optimize unnecessary check in Vec::retain
The function `vec::Vec::retain` only have two stages:
1. Nothing was deleted.
2. Some elements were deleted.
Here is an unnecessary check `if g.deleted_cnt > 0` in the loop, and it's difficult for compiler to optimize it. I split the loop into two stages manully and keep the code clean using const generics.
I write a special but common bench case for this optimization. I call retain on vec but keep all elements.
Before and after this optimization:
```
test vec::bench_retain_whole_100000 ... bench: 84,803 ns/iter (+/- 17,314)
```
```
test vec::bench_retain_whole_100000 ... bench: 42,638 ns/iter (+/- 16,910)
```
The result is expected, there are two `if`s before the optimization and one `if` after.
Fix spacing of links in inline code.
Similar to #80733, but the focus is different. This PR eliminates all occurrences of pieced-together inline code blocks like [`Box`]`<`[`Option`]`<T>>` and replaces them with good-looking ones (using HTML-syntax), like <code>[Box]<[Option]\<T>></code>. As far as I can tell, I should’ve found all of these in the standard library (regex search with `` r"`\]`|`\[`" ``) \[except for in `core::convert` where I’ve noticed other things in the docs that I want to fix in a separate PR]. In particular, unlike #80733, I’ve added almost no new instance of inline code that’s broken up into multiple links (or some link and some link-free part). I also added tooltips (the stuff in quotes for the markdown link listings) in places that caught my eye, but that’s by no means systematic, just opportunistic.
[Box]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[`Box`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
[Option]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
[`Option`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/option/enum.Option.html "Option"
Context: I got annoyed by repeatedly running into new misformatted inline code while reading the standard library docs. I know that once issue #83997 (and/or related ones) are resolved, these changes become somewhat obsolete, but I fail to notice much progress on that end right now.
r? `@jyn514`
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve link tooltips in alloc::fmt
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve link tooltips in alloc::{rc, sync}
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve link tooltips in alloc::string
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks in alloc::vec
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks in core::option
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve a few link tooltips in core::result
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks in core::{iter::{self, iterator}, stream::stream, poll}
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve a few link tooltips in std::{fs, path}
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks in std::{collections, time}
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks in and make formatting of `&str`-like types consistent in std::ffi::{c_str, os_str}
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve link tooltips in std::ffi
----------
Fix spacing for links inside code blocks, and improve a few link tooltips
in std::{io::{self, buffered::{bufreader, bufwriter}, cursor, util}, net::{self, addr}}
----------
Fix typo in link to `into` for `OsString` docs
----------
Remove tooltips that will probably become redundant in the future
----------
Apply suggestions from code review
Replacing `…std/primitive.reference.html` paths with just `reference`
Co-authored-by: Joshua Nelson <github@jyn.dev>
----------
Also replace `…std/primitive.reference.html` paths with just `reference` in `core::pin`
The libs-api team agrees to allow const_trait_impl to appear in the
standard library as long as stable code cannot be broken (they are
properly gated) this means if the compiler teams thinks it's okay, then
it's okay.
My priority on constifying would be:
1. Non-generic impls (e.g. Default) or generic impls with no
bounds
2. Generic functions with bounds (that use const impls)
3. Generic impls with bounds
4. Impls for traits with associated types
For people opening constification PRs: please cc me and/or oli-obk.
Stabilize Vec<T>::shrink_to
This PR stabilizes `shrink_to` feature and closes the corresponding issue. The second point was addressed already, and no `panic!` should occur.
Closes#56431.
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**
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.
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.
