Optimize VecDeque::append
Optimize `VecDeque::append` to do unsafe copy rather than iterating through each element.
On my `Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 @ 2.20GHz`, the benchmark shows 37% improvements:
```
Master:
custom-bench vec_deque_append 583164 ns/iter
custom-bench vec_deque_append 550040 ns/iter
Patched:
custom-bench vec_deque_append 349204 ns/iter
custom-bench vec_deque_append 368164 ns/iter
```
Additional notes on the context: this is the third attempt to implement a non-trivial version of `VecDeque::append`, the last two are reverted due to unsoundness or regression, see:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52553, reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53571
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53564, reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54851
Both cases are covered by existing tests.
Signed-off-by: tabokie <xy.tao@outlook.com>
Add #[must_use] to alloc constructors
Added `#[must_use]`. to the various forms of `new`, `pin`, and `with_capacity` in the `alloc` crate. No extra explanations given as I couldn't think of anything useful to add.
I figure this deserves extra scrutiny compared to the other PRs I've done so far. In particular:
* The 4 `pin`/`pin_in` methods I touched. Are there legitimate use cases for pinning and not using the result? Pinning's a difficult concept I'm not very comfortable with.
* `Box`'s constructors. Do people ever create boxes just for the side effects... allocating or zeroing out memory?
Parent issue: #89692
r? ``@joshtriplett``
refactor: make VecDeque's IterMut fields module-private, not just crate-private
Made the fields of VecDeque's IterMut private by creating a IterMut::new(...) function to create a new instance of IterMut and migrating usage to use IterMut::new(...).
Made the fields of VecDeque's IterMut private by creating a IterMut::new(...) function to create a new instance of IterMut and migrating usage to use IterMut::new(...).
refactor: VecDeques PairSlices fields to private
Reducing VecDeque's PairSlices fields to private, a `from(...)` method is already used to create PairSlices.
BTreeMap/BTreeSet::from_iter: use bulk building to improve the performance
Bulk building is a common technique to increase the performance of building a fresh btree map. Instead of inserting items one-by-one, we sort all the items beforehand then create the BtreeMap in bulk.
Benchmark
```
./x.py bench library/alloc --test-args btree::map::from_iter
```
* Before
```
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_100 ... bench: 3,694 ns/iter (+/- 840)
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_10_000 ... bench: 1,033,446 ns/iter (+/- 192,950)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_100 ... bench: 5,689 ns/iter (+/- 1,259)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_10_000 ... bench: 861,033 ns/iter (+/- 118,815)
```
* After
```
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_100 ... bench: 3,033 ns/iter (+/- 707)
test btree::map::from_iter_rand_10_000 ... bench: 775,958 ns/iter (+/- 105,152)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_100 ... bench: 2,969 ns/iter (+/- 336)
test btree::map::from_iter_seq_10_000 ... bench: 258,292 ns/iter (+/- 29,364)
```
BTree: remove Ord bound from new
`K: Ord` bound is unnecessary on `BTree{Map,Set}::new` and their `Default` impl. No elements exist so there are nothing to compare anyway, so I don't think "future proof" would be a blocker here. This is analogous to `HashMap::new` not having a `K: Eq + Hash` bound.
#79245 originally does this and for some reason drops the change to `new` and `Default`. I can see why changes to other methods like `entry` or `symmetric_difference` need to be careful but I couldn't find out any reason not to do it on `new`.
Removing the bound also makes the stabilisation of `const fn new` not depending on const trait bounds.
cc `@steffahn` who suggests me to make this PR.
r? `@dtolnay`
Bulk building is a common technique to increase the performance of
building a fresh btree map. Instead of inserting items one-by-one,
we sort all the items beforehand then create the BtreeMap in bulk.
Optimize unnecessary check in VecDeque::retain
This pr is highly inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88060 which shared the same idea: we can split the `for` loop into stages so that we can remove unnecessary checks like `del > 0`.
## Benchmarks
Before
```rust
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_half_10000 ... bench: 290,125 ns/iter (+/- 8,717)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_odd_10000 ... bench: 291,588 ns/iter (+/- 9,621)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_whole_10000 ... bench: 287,426 ns/iter (+/- 9,009)
```
After
```rust
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_half_10000 ... bench: 243,940 ns/iter (+/- 8,563)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_odd_10000 ... bench: 242,768 ns/iter (+/- 3,903)
test collections::vec_deque::tests::bench_retain_whole_10000 ... bench: 202,926 ns/iter (+/- 6,332)
```
Based on the current benchmark, this PR will improve the perf of `VecDeque::retain` by around 16%. For special cases, the improvement will be up to 30%.
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <github@xuanwo.io>
