Correct iterator adaptor Chain
The iterator protocol specifies that the iteration ends with the return
value `None` from `.next()` (or `.next_back()`) and it is unspecified
what further calls return. The chain adaptor must account for this in
its DoubleEndedIterator implementation.
It uses three states:
- Both `a` and `b` are valid
- Only the Front iterator (`a`) is valid
- Only the Back iterator (`b`) is valid
The fourth state (neither iterator is valid) only occurs after Chain has
returned None once, so we don't need to store this state.
Fixes#26316
The iterator protocol specifies that the iteration ends with the return
value `None` from `.next()` (or `.next_back()`) and it is unspecified
what further calls return. The chain adaptor must account for this in
its DoubleEndedIterator implementation.
It uses three states:
- Both `a` and `b` are valid
- Only the Front iterator (`a`) is valid
- Only the Back iterator (`b`) is valid
The fourth state (neither iterator is valid) only occurs after Chain has
returned None once, so we don't need to store this state.
Fixes#26316
Function arguments are live for the whole function scope, so adding
lifetime intrinsics around them adds no value. The same is true for drop
hint allocas and everything else that goes directly through
lvalue_scratch_datum. So the easiest fix is to emit lifetime intrinsics
only for lvalue datums that are created in to_lvalue_datum_in_scope().
The reduces peak memory usage and LLVM times by about 1-4%, depending on
the crate.
Combining them seemed like a good idea at the time, but turns out that
handling lifetimes separately makes it somewhat easier to handle cases
where we don't want the intrinsics, and let's you see more easily where
the start/end pairs are.
The issues that the comments referred to were fixed before the PR even
landed but we never got around to remove the hack of skipping the
lifetime start.
According to https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms679351(v=vs.85).aspx:
> If the function succeeds, the return value is the number of TCHARs stored in the output buffer,
> excluding the terminating null character.
_**Completely untested**_… since I have no Windows machine or anything of a sort to test this on.
r? @aturon
Reserving lower_bound bytes was just silly. It’d be perfectly reasonable
to have empty strings in the iterator, which could cause superfluous
reallocation of the string, or to have more than one byte per string,
which could cause additional reallocation (in practice it’ll balance
out). The added complexity of this logic is simply pointless, adding
a little bloat with no demonstrable advantage and slight disadvantage.
Currently, `early_error` and `early_warn` in `librustc::session` always
use `ColorConfig::Auto`. Modify them to follow the color configuration
set by the `--color` option.
As colored output is also printed during the early stage, parsing the
`--color` option should be done as early as possible. However, there are
still some cases when the output needs to be colored before knowing the
exact color settings. In these cases, it will be defaulted to
`ColorConfig::Auto`, which is the same as before.
Fixes#27879.
On Linux the flag is just ignored if it is not supported:
https://lwn.net/Articles/588444/
Still needs the values of O_CLOEXEC on the BSDs.
Touches #24237.
- All the libstd tests are passing in the optimized build against
a Zenfone2 and the x86 Android emulator.
I haven't tested the other libraries though.
Some hoedown FFI changes:
- `HOEDOWN_EXT_NO_INTRA_EMPHASIS` constant changed.
- Updated/tidied up all callback function signatures.
- All opaque data access has an additional layer of indirection for some reason (`hoedown_renderer_data`).
This also fixes#27862.
This handles the case where the #[main] function is buried deeper in
the ast than we search for #[test] functions. I'm not sure why one
would want to do that, but since it works in standard compilation it
should also work for tests.
This increases regionck performance greatly - type-checking on
librustc decreased from 9.1s to 8.1s. Because of Amdahl's law,
total performance is improved only by about 1.5% (LLVM wizards,
this is your opportunity to shine!).
before:
576.91user 4.26system 7:42.36elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1142192maxresident)k
after:
566.50user 4.84system 7:36.84elapsed 125%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1124304maxresident)k
I am somewhat worried really need to find out why we have this Red Queen's
Race going on here. Originally I suspected it may be a problem from RFC1214's
warnings, but it seems to be an effect from other changes.
However, the increase seems to be mostly in LLVM's time, so I guess
it's the LLVM wizards' problem.
r? @nikomatsakis
