Remove not(stage0) from deny(warnings)
Historically this was done to accommodate bugs in lints, but there hasn't been a
bug in a lint since this feature was added which the warnings affected. Let's
completely purge warnings from all our stages by denying warnings in all stages.
This will also assist in tracking down `stage0` code to be removed whenever
we're updating the bootstrap compiler.
Add PeekMut::pop
A fairly common workflow is to put a bunch of stuff into a binary heap
and then mutate the top value until its empty. This both makes that a
bit more convenient (no need to save a boolean off and pop after to
avoid borrowck issues), and a bit more efficient since you only shift
once.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @rust-lang/libs
Implement placement-in protocol for `Vec`
Follow-up of #32366 per comment at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30172#issuecomment-268099009, updating to latest rust, leaving @apasel422 as author and putting myself as committer.
I've removed the implementation of `push` in terms of place to make this PR more conservative.
A fairly common workflow is to put a bunch of stuff into a binary heap
and then mutate the top value until its empty. This both makes that a
bit more convenient (no need to save a boolean off and pop after to
avoid borrowck issues), and a bit more efficient since you only shift
once.
Historically this was done to accommodate bugs in lints, but there hasn't been a
bug in a lint since this feature was added which the warnings affected. Let's
completely purge warnings from all our stages by denying warnings in all stages.
This will also assist in tracking down `stage0` code to be removed whenever
we're updating the bootstrap compiler.
Advertise Vec in LinkedList docs
r? @steveklabnik
Hi! We already [advise](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/#use-a-linkedlist-when) to use `Vec` instead of `LinkedList` in the top-level collections documentation. But I think it may be missed by someone who just directly finds `LinkedList`.
What do you feel about advertising `Vec` directly in `LinkedList` docs as well?
Minor fix in the merge_sort comments
There was an off-by-one error discovered by @tbelaire.
So, to repeat... the two invariants we are enforcing are:
1. Run lengths are decreasing.
2. Sum of lengths of any two adjacent runs is less than the length of
their predecessor.
This commit changes the relevant comment to be clearer and have correct bounds on `i`.
r? @bluss
There was an off-by-one error discovered by @tbelaire.
So, the two invariants we are enforcing are:
1. Run lengths are decreasing.
2. Sum of lengths of any two adjacent runs is less than the length of
their predecessor.
This commit changes the comment to be clearer and have correct bounds on `i`.
Implement a faster sort algorithm
Hi everyone, this is my first PR.
I've made some changes to the standard sort algorithm, starting out with a few tweaks here and there, but in the end this endeavour became a complete rewrite of it.
#### Summary
Changes:
* Improved performance, especially on partially sorted inputs.
* Performs less comparisons on both random and partially sorted inputs.
* Decreased the size of temporary memory: the new sort allocates 4x less.
Benchmark:
```
name out1 ns/iter out2 ns/iter diff ns/iter diff %
slice::bench::sort_large_ascending 85,323 (937 MB/s) 8,970 (8918 MB/s) -76,353 -89.49%
slice::bench::sort_large_big_ascending 2,135,297 (599 MB/s) 355,955 (3595 MB/s) -1,779,342 -83.33%
slice::bench::sort_large_big_descending 2,266,402 (564 MB/s) 416,479 (3073 MB/s) -1,849,923 -81.62%
slice::bench::sort_large_big_random 3,053,031 (419 MB/s) 1,921,389 (666 MB/s) -1,131,642 -37.07%
slice::bench::sort_large_descending 313,181 (255 MB/s) 14,725 (5432 MB/s) -298,456 -95.30%
slice::bench::sort_large_mostly_ascending 287,706 (278 MB/s) 243,204 (328 MB/s) -44,502 -15.47%
slice::bench::sort_large_mostly_descending 415,078 (192 MB/s) 271,028 (295 MB/s) -144,050 -34.70%
slice::bench::sort_large_random 545,872 (146 MB/s) 521,559 (153 MB/s) -24,313 -4.45%
slice::bench::sort_large_random_expensive 30,321,770 (2 MB/s) 23,533,735 (3 MB/s) -6,788,035 -22.39%
slice::bench::sort_medium_ascending 616 (1298 MB/s) 155 (5161 MB/s) -461 -74.84%
slice::bench::sort_medium_descending 1,952 (409 MB/s) 202 (3960 MB/s) -1,750 -89.65%
slice::bench::sort_medium_random 3,646 (219 MB/s) 3,421 (233 MB/s) -225 -6.17%
slice::bench::sort_small_ascending 39 (2051 MB/s) 34 (2352 MB/s) -5 -12.82%
slice::bench::sort_small_big_ascending 96 (13333 MB/s) 96 (13333 MB/s) 0 0.00%
slice::bench::sort_small_big_descending 248 (5161 MB/s) 243 (5267 MB/s) -5 -2.02%
slice::bench::sort_small_big_random 501 (2554 MB/s) 490 (2612 MB/s) -11 -2.20%
slice::bench::sort_small_descending 95 (842 MB/s) 63 (1269 MB/s) -32 -33.68%
slice::bench::sort_small_random 372 (215 MB/s) 354 (225 MB/s) -18 -4.84%
```
#### Background
First, let me just do a quick brain dump to discuss what I learned along the way.
The official documentation says that the standard sort in Rust is a stable sort. This constraint is thus set in stone and immediately rules out many popular sorting algorithms. Essentially, the only algorithms we might even take into consideration are:
1. [Merge sort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merge_sort)
2. [Block sort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_sort) (famous implementations are [WikiSort](https://github.com/BonzaiThePenguin/WikiSort) and [GrailSort](https://github.com/Mrrl/GrailSort))
3. [TimSort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timsort)
Actually, all of those are just merge sort flavors. :) The current standard sort in Rust is a simple iterative merge sort. It has three problems. First, it's slow on partially sorted inputs (even though #29675 helped quite a bit). Second, it always makes around `log(n)` iterations copying the entire array between buffers, no matter what. Third, it allocates huge amounts of temporary memory (a buffer of size `2*n`, where `n` is the size of input).
The problem of auxilliary memory allocation is a tough one. Ideally, it would be best for our sort to allocate `O(1)` additional memory. This is what block sort (and it's variants) does. However, it's often very complicated (look at [this](https://github.com/BonzaiThePenguin/WikiSort/blob/master/WikiSort.cpp)) and even then performs rather poorly. The author of WikiSort claims good performance, but that must be taken with a grain of salt. It performs well in comparison to `std::stable_sort` in C++. It can even beat `std::sort` on partially sorted inputs, but on random inputs it's always far worse. My rule of thumb is: high performance, low memory overhead, stability - choose two.
TimSort is another option. It allocates a buffer of size `n/2`, which is not great, but acceptable. Performs extremelly well on partially sorted inputs. However, it seems pretty much all implementations suck on random inputs. I benchmarked implementations in [Rust](https://github.com/notriddle/rust-timsort), [C++](https://github.com/gfx/cpp-TimSort), and [D](fd518eb310/std/algorithm/sorting.d (L2062)). The results were a bit disappointing. It seems bad performance is due to complex galloping procedures in hot loops. Galloping noticeably improves performance on partially sorted inputs, but worsens it on random ones.
#### The new algorithm
Choosing the best algorithm is not easy. Plain merge sort is bad on partially sorted inputs. TimSort is bad on random inputs and block sort is even worse. However, if we take the main ideas from TimSort (intelligent merging strategy of sorted runs) and drop galloping, then we'll have great performance on random inputs and it won't be bad on partially sorted inputs either.
That is exactly what this new algorithm does. I can't call it TimSort, since it steals just a few of it's ideas. Complete TimSort would be a much more complex and elaborate implementation. In case we in the future figure out how to incorporate more of it's ideas into this implementation without crippling performance on random inputs, it's going to be very easy to extend. I also did several other minor improvements, like reworked insertion sort to make it faster.
There are also new, more thorough benchmarks and panic safety tests.
The final code is not terribly complex and has less unsafe code than I anticipated, but there's still plenty of it that should be carefully reviewed. I did my best at documenting non-obvious code.
I'd like to notify several people of this PR, since they might be interested and have useful insights:
1. @huonw because he wrote the [original merge sort](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/11064).
2. @alexcrichton because he was involved in multiple discussions of it.
3. @veddan because he wrote [introsort](https://github.com/veddan/rust-introsort) in Rust.
4. @notriddle because he wrote [TimSort](https://github.com/notriddle/rust-timsort) in Rust.
5. @bluss because he had an attempt at writing WikiSort in Rust.
6. @gnzlbg, @rkruppe, and @mark-i-m because they were involved in discussion #36318.
**P.S.** [quickersort](https://github.com/notriddle/quickersort) describes itself as being universally [faster](https://github.com/notriddle/quickersort/blob/master/perf.txt) than the standard sort, which is true. However, if this PR gets merged, things might [change](https://gist.github.com/stjepang/b9f0c3eaa0e1f1280b61b963dae19a30) a bit. ;)
Since merge_sort is generic and collapse isn't, that means calls to
collapse won't be inlined. inlined. Therefore, we must stick an
`#[inline]` above `fn collapse`.
Specialization for Extend<&T> for vec
Specialize to use copy_from_slice when extending a Vec with &[T] where
T: Copy.
This specialization results in `.clone()` not being called in `extend_from_slice` and `extend` when the element is `Copy`.
Fixes#38021
This is a complete rewrite of the standard sort algorithm. The new algorithm
is a simplified variant of TimSort. In summary, the changes are:
* Improved performance, especially on partially sorted inputs.
* Performs less comparisons on both random and partially sorted inputs.
* Decreased the size of temporary memory: the new sort allocates 4x less.
Forward more ExactSizeIterator methods and `is_empty` edits
- Forward ExactSizeIterator methods in more places, like `&mut I` and `Box<I>` iterator impls.
- Improve `VecDeque::is_empty` itself (see commit 4)
- All the collections iterators now have `len` or `is_empty` forwarded if doing so is a benefit. In the remaining cases, they already use a simple size hint (using something like a stored `usize` value), which is sufficient for the default implementation of len and is_empty.
Improve is_empty on the VecDeque and its iterators by just comparing
tail and head; this saves a few instructions (to be able to remove the
`& (size - 1)` computation, it would have to know that size is a power of two).
Add rustbuild command `bench`
Add command bench to rustbuild, so that `./x.py bench <path>` can compile and run benchmarks.
`./x.py bench --stage 1 src/libcollections` and `./x.py bench --stage 1 src/libstd` should both compile well. Just `./x.py bench` runs all benchmarks for the libstd crates.
Fixes#37897
Vec::from_iter's general case allocates the vector up front;
this is redundant for the TrustedLen case, and can then be avoided
to reduce the size of the code.
Since I said "no intentional functional change" in the previous commit,
I guess it was inevitable there were unintentional changes. Not
functional, but optimization-wise. This restores the extend
specialization's use in Vec::from_iter.
Fix issues with the Add/AddAssign impls for Cow<str>
* Correct the stability attributes.
* Make Add and AddAssign actually behave the same.
* Use String::with_capacity when allocating a new string.
* Fix the tests.
Add Iterator trait TrustedLen to enable better FromIterator / Extend
This trait attempts to improve FromIterator / Extend code by enabling it to trust the iterator to produce an exact number of elements, which means that reallocation needs to happen only once and is moved out of the loop.
`TrustedLen` differs from `ExactSizeIterator` in that it attempts to include _more_ iterators by allowing for the case that the iterator's len does not fit in `usize`. Consumers must check for this case (for example they could panic, since they can't allocate a collection of that size).
For example, chain can be TrustedLen and all numerical ranges can be TrustedLen. All they need to do is to report an exact size if it fits in `usize`, and `None` as the upper bound otherwise.
The trait describes its contract like this:
```
An iterator that reports an accurate length using size_hint.
The iterator reports a size hint where it is either exact
(lower bound is equal to upper bound), or the upper bound is `None`.
The upper bound must only be `None` if the actual iterator length is
larger than `usize::MAX`.
The iterator must produce exactly the number of elements it reported.
This trait must only be implemented when the contract is upheld.
Consumers of this trait must inspect `.size_hint()`’s upper bound.
```
Fixes#37232
* Correct the stability attributes.
* Make Add and AddAssign actually behave the same.
* Use String::with_capacity when allocating a new string.
* Fix the tests.
