Skip to content

Insurance policy in case iter.size_hint() lies. #65749

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
bors merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2019
Merged

Insurance policy in case iter.size_hint() lies. #65749

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion src/librustc/ty/context.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2930,14 +2930,18 @@ impl<T, R, E> InternIteratorElement<T, R> for Result<T, E> {
// lower bounds from `size_hint` agree they are correct.
Ok(match iter.size_hint() {
(1, Some(1)) => {
f(&[iter.next().unwrap()?])
let t0 = iter.next().unwrap()?;
assert!(iter.next().is_none());
f(&[t0])
}
(2, Some(2)) => {
let t0 = iter.next().unwrap()?;
let t1 = iter.next().unwrap()?;
assert!(iter.next().is_none());
f(&[t0, t1])
}
(0, Some(0)) => {
assert!(iter.next().is_none());

@Marwes Marwes Oct 24, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it matters this could be written without unwrap's or asserts.

let a = match iter.next() {
    None => return Ok(f(&[])),
    Some(a) => a?,
};
let b = match iter.next() {
    None => return Ok(f(&[a])),
    Some(b) => b?,
};
let c = match iter.next() {
    None => return Ok(f(&[a, b])),
    Some(c) => c?,
};
let mut vec: SmallVec<[_; 8]> = SmallVec::with_capacity(iter.size_hint().0 + 3);
vec.push(a);
vec.push(b);
vec.push(c);
for result in iter {
    vec.push(result?);
}
Ok(f(&vec))

@RalfJung RalfJung Oct 24, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice! OTOH, the original order of the match was chosen by @nnethercote to reflect the frequency of the cases.

@Centril Centril Oct 24, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RalfJung Should we perf test this variant?

@RalfJung RalfJung Oct 24, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No opinion. @nnethercote what do you think?

@nnethercote nnethercote Oct 24, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The vec construction could be more concise, e.g. using extend. And I would use t0, t1, t2 instead of a, b, c. And the comment needs updating. Otherwise, fine by me to use this form if the perf isn't hurt.

@Marwes Marwes Oct 25, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

extend would be better but there isn't a way in std to extend from a Result iterator so you need a workaround like https://github.com/mitsuhiko/redis-rs/blob/418512bf9171589b814da4c5ecb500e8747781e0/src/parser.rs#L21-L54

f(&[])
}
_ => {
Expand Down