-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement O(1) slice::Iter{,Mut} methods. #24701
Conversation
Instead of using the O(n) defaults, define O(1) shortcuts.
r? @pcwalton (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
r? @aturon |
|
||
#[inline] | ||
fn last(self) -> Option<$elem> { | ||
// We could just call next_back but this avoids the memory write. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like next_back
is better: it seems like the write will often be eliminated anyway, and even if it isn't, it's cheap: i.e. the unsafe code isn't worth it.
1. Use next_back for last. 2. Use slices for computing nth. It might be possible to use the same code for both the mut/const case but I don't know how that will play with compiler optimizations.
// Helper function for IterMut::nth | ||
fn iter_nth(&mut self, n: usize) -> Option<&'a mut T> { | ||
match make_mut_slice!(T => &'a mut [T]: self.ptr, self.end).get_mut(n) { | ||
Some(elem_ref) => if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The logic here (especially with 0-sized types) is unfortunately duplicated with the next
functions, would it be possible to deduplicate these conditionals?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I ended up using a macro to work around the mut/const problem. I could have used custom traits but that would have been a lot of extra code for little functionality... Something like (untested):
trait Reference<T> {
type Pointer;
unsafe fn as_ptr(&self) -> Self::Pointer {
self as Self::Pointer
}
}
trait Pointer<T> {
type Reference;
unsafe fn as_ref(&self) -> Self::Reference {
transmute(self)
}
unsafe fn as_slice_ref(&self) -> Self::Reference {
if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
&mut *(1 as *mut _)
} else {
self.as_ref()
}
}
unsafe fn slice_offset(n: isize) -> Self;
}
impl<T> Reference<T> for &T {
type Pointer = *const T;
}
impl<T> Reference<T> for &mut T {
type Pointer = *mut T;
}
impl<T> Pointer<T> for *const T {
type Reference = &T;
unsafe fn slice_offset(n: isize) -> Self {
if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
transmute(self as usize + n)
} else {
self.offset(n)
}
}
}
impl<T> Pointer<T> for *mut T {
type Reference = &mut T;
unsafe fn slice_offset(n: isize) -> Self {
if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
transmute(self as usize + n)
} else {
self.offset(n)
}
}
}
Why do slice iterators return |
match self.as_slice().get(n) { | ||
Some(elem_ref) => unsafe { | ||
self.ptr = slice_offset!(elem_ref as *const _, 1); | ||
Some(slice_ref!(elem_ref)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not 100% clear on why the slice_ref
macro is needed here -- doesn't elem_ref
already have the correct type and semantics?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hence my question:
Why do slice iterators return &mut *(1 as *mut) (references to 0x1) instead of the actual pointer into the slice (self.ptr)?
elem_ref
is the actual pointer but slice_ref!
will convert it to &mut *(1 as *mut _)
if the type is zero sized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This may be a relic of an era since long past, I think elem_ref
should be usable as-is today?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if making this an actual pointer will have a performance impact. As-is, iterators over zero-sized types always yield constants.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm that's true, I think it's fine to investigate this on the side though as the rest of this PR should be good to go, thanks @Stebalien!
Sorry for the delay reviewing this (please feel free to ping me on IRC, my inbox was recently a bit crazy and I was missing some things). This PR looks good to me -- I left you a minor question, but otherwise I'm ready to send it to bors. Thanks for doing this! |
Instead of using the O(n) defaults, define O(1) shortcuts. I also copied (and slightly modified) the relevant tests from the iter tests into the slice tests just in case someone comes along and changes them in the future. Partially implements #24214.
Instead of using the O(n) defaults, define O(1) shortcuts. I also copied (and slightly modified) the relevant tests from the iter tests into the slice tests just in case someone comes along and changes them in the future.
Partially implements #24214.