Implement Error for TryReserveError
I noticed that the Error trait wasn't implemented for TryReserveError. (#48043)
Not sure if the error messages and code style are 100% correct, it's my first time contributing to the Rust std.
More documentation and simplification of BTreeMap's internals
Salvage the documentation and simplification from #67980, without changing the type locked down by debuginfo.
r? @rkruppe
BTreeMap navigation done safer & faster
It turns out that there was a faster way to do the tree navigation code bundled in #67073, by moving from edge to KV and from KV to next edge separately. It extracts most of the code as safe functions, and contains the duplication of handles within the short wrapper functions.
This somehow hits a sweet spot in the compiler because it reports boosts all over the board:
```
>cargo benchcmp pre3.txt posz4.txt --threshold 5
name pre3.txt ns/iter posz4.txt ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup
btree::map::first_and_last_0 40 37 -3 -7.50% x 1.08
btree::map::first_and_last_100 58 44 -14 -24.14% x 1.32
btree::map::iter_1000 8,920 3,419 -5,501 -61.67% x 2.61
btree::map::iter_100000 1,069,290 411,615 -657,675 -61.51% x 2.60
btree::map::iter_20 169 58 -111 -65.68% x 2.91
btree::map::iter_mut_1000 8,701 3,303 -5,398 -62.04% x 2.63
btree::map::iter_mut_100000 1,034,560 405,975 -628,585 -60.76% x 2.55
btree::map::iter_mut_20 165 58 -107 -64.85% x 2.84
btree::set::clone_100 1,831 1,562 -269 -14.69% x 1.17
btree::set::clone_100_and_clear 1,831 1,565 -266 -14.53% x 1.17
btree::set::clone_100_and_into_iter 1,917 1,541 -376 -19.61% x 1.24
btree::set::clone_100_and_pop_all 2,609 2,441 -168 -6.44% x 1.07
btree::set::clone_100_and_remove_all 4,598 3,927 -671 -14.59% x 1.17
btree::set::clone_100_and_remove_half 2,765 2,551 -214 -7.74% x 1.08
btree::set::clone_10k 191,610 164,616 -26,994 -14.09% x 1.16
btree::set::clone_10k_and_clear 192,003 164,616 -27,387 -14.26% x 1.17
btree::set::clone_10k_and_into_iter 200,037 163,010 -37,027 -18.51% x 1.23
btree::set::clone_10k_and_pop_all 267,023 250,913 -16,110 -6.03% x 1.06
btree::set::clone_10k_and_remove_all 536,230 464,100 -72,130 -13.45% x 1.16
btree::set::clone_10k_and_remove_half 453,350 430,545 -22,805 -5.03% x 1.05
btree::set::difference_random_100_vs_100 1,787 801 -986 -55.18% x 2.23
btree::set::difference_random_100_vs_10k 2,978 2,696 -282 -9.47% x 1.10
btree::set::difference_random_10k_vs_100 111,075 54,734 -56,341 -50.72% x 2.03
btree::set::difference_random_10k_vs_10k 246,380 175,980 -70,400 -28.57% x 1.40
btree::set::difference_staggered_100_vs_100 1,789 951 -838 -46.84% x 1.88
btree::set::difference_staggered_100_vs_10k 2,798 2,606 -192 -6.86% x 1.07
btree::set::difference_staggered_10k_vs_10k 176,452 97,401 -79,051 -44.80% x 1.81
btree::set::intersection_100_neg_vs_10k_pos 34 32 -2 -5.88% x 1.06
btree::set::intersection_100_pos_vs_100_neg 30 27 -3 -10.00% x 1.11
btree::set::intersection_random_100_vs_100 1,537 613 -924 -60.12% x 2.51
btree::set::intersection_random_100_vs_10k 2,793 2,649 -144 -5.16% x 1.05
btree::set::intersection_random_10k_vs_10k 222,127 147,166 -74,961 -33.75% x 1.51
btree::set::intersection_staggered_100_vs_100 1,447 622 -825 -57.01% x 2.33
btree::set::intersection_staggered_100_vs_10k 2,606 2,382 -224 -8.60% x 1.09
btree::set::intersection_staggered_10k_vs_10k 143,620 58,790 -84,830 -59.07% x 2.44
btree::set::is_subset_100_vs_100 1,349 488 -861 -63.83% x 2.76
btree::set::is_subset_100_vs_10k 1,720 1,428 -292 -16.98% x 1.20
btree::set::is_subset_10k_vs_10k 135,984 48,527 -87,457 -64.31% x 2.80
```
The `first_and_last` ones are noise (they don't do iteration), the others seem genuine.
As always, approved by Miri.
Also, a separate commit with some more benchmarks of mutable behaviour (which also benefit).
r? @cuviper
Audit liballoc for leaks in `Drop` impls when user destructor panics
Inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67243 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67235, this audits and hopefully fixes the remaining `Drop` impls in liballoc for resource leaks in the presence of panics in destructors called by the affected `Drop` impl.
This does not touch `Hash{Map,Set}` since they live in hashbrown. They have similar issues though.
r? @KodrAus
Add LinkedList::remove()
LinkedList::remove() removes the element at the specified index and returns it.
I added this because I think having a remove function would be useful to have, and similar functions are in other containers, like Vec and HashMap.
I'm not sure if adding a feature like this requires an RFC or not, so I'm sorry if this PR is premature.
Fix and test implementation of BTreeMap's first/last_entry, pop_first/last
Properly implement and test `first_entry` & `last_entry` to fix problem report #68829
BTreeMap: tag and explain unsafe internal functions or assert preconditions
#68418 concluded that it's not desirable to tag all internal functions with preconditions as being unsafe. This PR does it to some functions, documents why, and elsewhere enforces the preconditions with asserts.
Implement clone_from for BTreeMap and BTreeSet
See #28481. This results in up to 90% speedups on simple data types when `self` and `other` are the same size, and is generally comparable or faster. Some concerns:
1. This implementation requires an `Ord` bound on the `Clone` implementation for `BTreeMap` and `BTreeSet`. Since these structs can only be created externally for keys with `Ord` implemented, this should be fine? If not, there's certainly a less safe way to do this.
2. Changing `next_unchecked` on `RangeMut` to return mutable key references allows for replacing the entire overlapping portion of both maps without changing the external interface in any way. However, if `clone_from` fails it can leave the `BTreeMap` in an invalid state, which might be unacceptable.
~This probably needs an FCP since it changes a trait bound, but (as far as I know?) that change cannot break any external code.~
Mainly for API parity with HashMap.
- Add BTreeMap::remove_entry
- Rewrite BTreeMap::remove to use remove_entry
- Use btreemap_remove_entry feature in doc comment
