BTreeMap/BTreeSet::from_iter: use bulk building to improve the performance
Bulk building is a common technique to increase the performance of building a fresh btree map. Instead of inserting items one-by-one, we sort all the items beforehand then create the BtreeMap in bulk.
Benchmark
```
./x.py bench library/alloc --test-args btree::map::from_iter
```
* Before
```
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_100 ... bench: 3,694 ns/iter (+/- 840)
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_10_000 ... bench: 1,033,446 ns/iter (+/- 192,950)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_100 ... bench: 5,689 ns/iter (+/- 1,259)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_10_000 ... bench: 861,033 ns/iter (+/- 118,815)
```
* After
```
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_100 ... bench: 3,033 ns/iter (+/- 707)
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_10_000 ... bench: 775,958 ns/iter (+/- 105,152)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_100 ... bench: 2,969 ns/iter (+/- 336)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_10_000 ... bench: 258,292 ns/iter (+/- 29,364)
```
BTree: remove Ord bound from new
`K: Ord` bound is unnecessary on `BTree{Map,Set}::new` and their `Default` impl. No elements exist so there are nothing to compare anyway, so I don't think "future proof" would be a blocker here. This is analogous to `HashMap::new` not having a `K: Eq + Hash` bound.
#79245 originally does this and for some reason drops the change to `new` and `Default`. I can see why changes to other methods like `entry` or `symmetric_difference` need to be careful but I couldn't find out any reason not to do it on `new`.
Removing the bound also makes the stabilisation of `const fn new` not depending on const trait bounds.
cc `@steffahn` who suggests me to make this PR.
r? `@dtolnay`
Bulk building is a common technique to increase the performance of
building a fresh btree map. Instead of inserting items one-by-one,
we sort all the items beforehand then create the BtreeMap in bulk.
Fix typo “a Rc” → “an Rc” (and a few more)
After stumbling about it in the dev-guide, I’ve devided to eliminate all mentions of “a Rc”, replacing it with “an Rc”. E.g.
```plain
$ rg "(^|[^'])\ba\b[^\w=:]*\bRc"
compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/owning_ref/mod.rs
1149:/// Typedef of a owning reference that uses a `Rc` as the owner.
library/std/src/ffi/os_str.rs
919: /// Converts a [`OsString`] into a [`Rc`]`<OsStr>` without copying or allocating.
library/std/src/ffi/c_str.rs
961: /// Converts a [`CString`] into a [`Rc`]`<CStr>` without copying or allocating.
src/doc/rustc-dev-guide/src/query.md
61:are cheaply cloneable; insert a `Rc` if necessary).
src/doc/book/src/ch15-06-reference-cycles.md
72:decreases the reference count of the `a` `Rc<List>` instance from 2 to 1 as
library/alloc/src/rc.rs
1746: /// Converts a generic type `T` into a `Rc<T>`
```
_(the match in the book is a false positive)_
Since the dev-guide is a submodule, it’s getting a separate PR: rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1191
I’ve also gone ahead and done the same search for `RwLock` and hit a few cases in the `OwningRef` adaption. Then, I couldn’t keep the countless cases of “a owning …” or “a owner” unaddressed, which concludes this PR.
`@rustbot` label C-cleanup
Adjust / fix documentation of `Arc::make_mut`
Related discussion in the users forum:
[Whatʼs this alleged difference between Arc::make_mut and Rc::make_mut? – The Rust Programming Language Forum](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-s-this-alleged-difference-between-arc-make-mut-and-rc-make-mut/63747?u=steffahn)
Also includes a small formatting improvement in the documentation of `Rc::make_mut`.
This PR makes the two documentations in question complete analogs. The previously claimed point in which one “differs from the behavior of” the other turns out to be incorrect, AFAIK.
One remaining inaccuracy: `Weak` pointers aren’t disassociated from the allocation but only from the contained value, i.e. in case of outstanding `Weak` pointers there still is a new allocation created, just the call to `.clone()` is avoided, instead the value is moved from one allocation to the other.
`@rustbot` label T-libs-api, A-docs
Optimize unnecessary check in VecDeque::retain
This pr is highly inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88060 which shared the same idea: we can split the `for` loop into stages so that we can remove unnecessary checks like `del > 0`.
## Benchmarks
Before
```rust
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_half_10000 ... bench: 290,125 ns/iter (+/- 8,717)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_odd_10000 ... bench: 291,588 ns/iter (+/- 9,621)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_whole_10000 ... bench: 287,426 ns/iter (+/- 9,009)
```
After
```rust
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_half_10000 ... bench: 243,940 ns/iter (+/- 8,563)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_odd_10000 ... bench: 242,768 ns/iter (+/- 3,903)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_whole_10000 ... bench: 202,926 ns/iter (+/- 6,332)
```
Based on the current benchmark, this PR will improve the perf of `VecDeque::retain` by around 16%. For special cases, the improvement will be up to 30%.
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <github@xuanwo.io>
Related discussion in the users forum:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-s-this-alleged-difference-between-arc-make-mut-and-rc-make-mut/63747?u=steffahn
Also includes small formatting improvement in the documentation of `Rc::make_mut`.
This commit makes the two documentations in question complete analogs. The previously claimed point in which
one "differs from the behavior of" the other turns out to be incorrect, AFAIK.
One remaining inaccuracy: `Weak` pointers aren't disassociated from the allocation but only from the contained
value, i.e. in case of outstanding `Weak` pointers there still is a new allocation created, just the
call to `.clone()` is avoided, instead the value is moved from one allocation to the other.
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.
BTree: merge the complication introduced by #81486 and #86031
Also:
- Deallocate the last few tree nodes as soon as an `into_iter` iterator steps beyond the end, instead of waiting around for the drop of the iterator (just to share more code).
- Symmetric code for backward iteration.
- Mark unsafe the methods on dying handles, modelling dying handles after raw pointers: it's the caller's responsibility to use them safely.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Specialize `Vec::clone_from` for `Copy` types
This should improve performance and reduce code size.
This also improves `clone_from` for `String`, `OsString` and `PathBuf`.
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.
Hide allocator details from TryReserveError
I think there's [no need for TryReserveError to carry detailed information](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48043#issuecomment-825139280), but I wouldn't want that issue to delay stabilization of the `try_reserve` feature.
So I'm proposing to stabilize `try_reserve` with a `TryReserveError` as an opaque structure, and if needed, expose error details later.
This PR moves the `enum` to an unstable inner `TryReserveErrorKind` that lives under a separate feature flag. `TryReserveErrorKind` could possibly be left as an implementation detail forever, and the `TryReserveError` get methods such as `allocation_size() -> Option<usize>` or `layout() -> Option<Layout>` instead, or the details could be dropped completely to make try-reserve errors just a unit struct, and thus smaller and cheaper.
Currently there is no API that allows fallible zero-allocation of a Vec.
Vec.try_reserve is not appropriate for this job since it doesn't know
whether it should zero or arbitrary uninitialized memory is fine.
Since Box currently holds most of the zeroing/uninit/slice allocation APIs
it's the best place to add yet another entry into this feature matrix.
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.
BTree: lazily locate leaves in rangeless iterators
BTree iterators always locate both the first and last leaf edge and often only need either one, i.e., whenever they are traversed in a single direction, like in for-loops and in the common use of `iter().next()` or `iter().next_back()` to retrieve the first or last key/value-pair (#62924). It's fairly easy to avoid because the iterators with this disadvantage already are quite separate from other iterators.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Move UnwindSafe, RefUnwindSafe, AssertUnwindSafe to core
They were previously only available in std::panic, not core::panic.
- https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.51.0/std/panic/trait.UnwindSafe.html
- https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.51.0/std/panic/trait.RefUnwindSafe.html
- https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.51.0/std/panic/struct.AssertUnwindSafe.html
Where this is relevant: trait objects! Inside a `#![no_std]` library it's otherwise impossible to have a struct holding a trait object, and at the same time can be used from downstream std crates in a way that doesn't interfere with catch_unwind.
```rust
// common library
#![no_std]
pub struct Thing {
pub(crate) x: &'static (dyn SomeTrait + Send + Sync),
}
pub(crate) trait SomeTrait {...}
```
```rust
// downstream application
fn main() {
let thing: library::Thing = ...;
let _ = std::panic::catch_unwind(|| { let _ = thing; }); // does not work :(
}
```
See a4131708e2/src/gradient.rs (L7-L15) for a real life example of needing to work around this problem. In particular that workaround would not even be viable if implementors of the trait were provided externally by a caller, as the `feature = "std"` would become non-additive in that case.
What happens without the UnwindSafe constraints:
```rust
fn main() {
let gradient = colorous::VIRIDIS;
let _ = std::panic::catch_unwind(|| { let _ = gradient; });
}
```
```console
error[E0277]: the type `(dyn colorous::gradient::EvalGradient + Send + Sync + 'static)` may contain interior mutability and a reference may not be safely transferrable across a catch_unwind boundary
--> src/main.rs:3:13
|
3 | let _ = std::panic::catch_unwind(|| { let _ = gradient; });
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `(dyn colorous::gradient::EvalGradient + Send + Sync + 'static)` may contain interior mutability and a reference may not be safely transferrable across a catch_unwind boundary
|
::: .rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/std/src/panic.rs:430:40
|
430 | pub fn catch_unwind<F: FnOnce() -> R + UnwindSafe, R>(f: F) -> Result<R> {
| ---------- required by this bound in `catch_unwind`
|
= help: within `Gradient`, the trait `RefUnwindSafe` is not implemented for `(dyn colorous::gradient::EvalGradient + Send + Sync + 'static)`
= note: required because it appears within the type `&'static (dyn colorous::gradient::EvalGradient + Send + Sync + 'static)`
= note: required because it appears within the type `Gradient`
= note: required because of the requirements on the impl of `UnwindSafe` for `&Gradient`
= note: required because it appears within the type `[closure@src/main.rs:3:38: 3:62]`
```
