-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Avoid allocations in Display for OsStr and Path #42613
Conversation
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
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 looks nice! The main thing seems to be that we should add some targeted unit tests for the new iterator-- I presume, perhaps wrongly, that there are existing tests for the Display
code in paths...
fn fmt(&self, formatter: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> Result<(), fmt::Error> { | ||
self.inner.fmt(formatter) | ||
fn fmt(&self, formatter: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result { | ||
fmt::Debug::fmt(&self.inner, formatter) |
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.
is this just general cleanup, or was this required for some reason?
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've made several similar changes for these reasons:
- it is easier to visually check that correct trait is called (
Debug
orDisplay
) - to make sure code on Windows and Redox (e. g.
os_str::Slice
) works correctly. I do not have access to Windows machine, so it's easier to write code uniformly (singlefmt
import and explicit trait names) than wait for build system job completion - and after all to unify all implementations in stack
os_str
,OsStr
,Path
src/libstd_unicode/lossy.rs
Outdated
|
||
/// Iterator over lossy UTF-8 string | ||
#[unstable(feature = "str_internals", issue = "0")] | ||
pub struct Utf8LossyIter<'a> { |
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.
can we write some more unit tests for this? it seems like quite a big chunk of code, and one for which it'd be easy to write some targeted unit tests...
src/libcollections/string.rs
Outdated
|
||
if i > 0 { | ||
unsafe { res.as_mut_vec().extend_from_slice(&v[..i]) }; | ||
let mut res = String::with_capacity(v.len()); |
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.
We know it'll be larger than v.len right? Maybe reserve some extra, like v.len() * 3 / 2?
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.
Probably. If yes, this should be done in separate PR. I've just kept this part as it was before my patch.
26644f6
to
e242390
Compare
I've added tests (copied from |
Some tests broken, wait a bit... |
ac9935b
to
cbf82e5
Compare
There's a tidy check error:
There were no I've added
which is apparently incorrect. What should I do? |
Going to pass the buck here. I'm not that familiar with the attributes that need to be set. |
src/libstd/ffi/os_str.rs
Outdated
fmt::Debug::fmt(&**self, formatter) | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.20.0")] | ||
impl fmt::Display for OsString { |
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 did not exist before and is a new stable feature being added in this PR, is that intentional? It was the libs team intention that this impl did not exist.
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.
Display
for OsString
seems to be perfectly reasonable for me. You may need to "display" an OS string like you "display" the usual string.
Anywhay, if it should exist, how should I mute tidy
?
If it shouldn't exist, how should I keep an implementation, but hide it from public API? #[doc(hidden)]
and #[unstable(feature = "str_internals", issue = "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.
Whether or not it's reasonable it is intentionally excluded and should not be added in this PR. If you'd like to add it then that should be done through a separate PR or an RFC.
This shouldn't exist, which means it should be deleted (along with most other Display
impls added here)
src/libcore/fmt/mod.rs
Outdated
@@ -1512,23 +1512,30 @@ impl Display for bool { | |||
} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
#[doc(hidden)] | |||
#[unstable(feature = "str_internals", issue = "0")] | |||
pub fn escape_str(s: &str, f: &mut Formatter) -> Result { |
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.
Can this avoid being exposed? It seems like a reasonable amount that's not too bad to just copy directly into the new iterator.
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #42648) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Updated the PR.
|
@bors: r+ |
📌 Commit ac96fd7 has been approved by |
Avoid allocations in Display for OsStr and Path #38879
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Historically many `Display` and `Debug` implementations for `OsStr`-like abstractions have gone through `String::from_utf8_lossy`, but this was updated in rust-lang#42613 to use an internal `Utf8Lossy` abstraction instead. This had the unfortunate side effect of causing a regression (rust-lang#43765) in code which relied on these `fmt` trait implementations respecting the various formatting flags specified. This commit opportunistically adds back interpretation of formatting trait flags in the "common case" where where `OsStr`-like "thing" is all valid utf-8 and can delegate to the formatting implementation for `str`. This doesn't entirely solve the regression as non-utf8 paths will format differently than they did before still (in that they will not respect formatting flags), but this should solve the regression for all "real world" use cases of paths and such. The door's also still open for handling these flags in the future! Closes rust-lang#43765
std: Respect formatting flags for str-like OsStr Historically many `Display` and `Debug` implementations for `OsStr`-like abstractions have gone through `String::from_utf8_lossy`, but this was updated in #42613 to use an internal `Utf8Lossy` abstraction instead. This had the unfortunate side effect of causing a regression (#43765) in code which relied on these `fmt` trait implementations respecting the various formatting flags specified. This commit opportunistically adds back interpretation of formatting trait flags in the "common case" where where `OsStr`-like "thing" is all valid utf-8 and can delegate to the formatting implementation for `str`. This doesn't entirely solve the regression as non-utf8 paths will format differently than they did before still (in that they will not respect formatting flags), but this should solve the regression for all "real world" use cases of paths and such. The door's also still open for handling these flags in the future! Closes #43765
Historically many `Display` and `Debug` implementations for `OsStr`-like abstractions have gone through `String::from_utf8_lossy`, but this was updated in rust-lang#42613 to use an internal `Utf8Lossy` abstraction instead. This had the unfortunate side effect of causing a regression (rust-lang#43765) in code which relied on these `fmt` trait implementations respecting the various formatting flags specified. This commit opportunistically adds back interpretation of formatting trait flags in the "common case" where where `OsStr`-like "thing" is all valid utf-8 and can delegate to the formatting implementation for `str`. This doesn't entirely solve the regression as non-utf8 paths will format differently than they did before still (in that they will not respect formatting flags), but this should solve the regression for all "real world" use cases of paths and such. The door's also still open for handling these flags in the future! Closes rust-lang#43765
In [RFC rust-lang#474][rfc474], the issue of how to handle Displaying a Path was left as an open question. The problem is that a Path may contain non-UTF-8 data on most platforms. In the implementation of the RFC, a `display` method was added, which returns an adapter that implements `Display` by replacing non-UTF8 data with a unicode replacement character. Though I can't find a record of the discussion around this issue, I believe there were two primary reasons not to just implement this behavior as the `Display` impl of `Path`: 1. The adapter allocated in the non-UTF8 case, and Rust as a rule tries to avoid allocations that are not explicit in code. 2. The user may prefer an alternative solution than using the unicode replacement character for handling non-UTF8 data. In my view, the choice to provide an adapter rather than implement Display has had a high cost in terms of user experience: * I almost never remember that I need an adapter, forcing me to go back and edit my code after compiling it and getting an error. * It makes my code more noisy to have the display adapter; this detail is rarely important. * It is extremely uncommon to actually do something other than call the display adapter when trying to display a path (I have never wanted anything else myself). * For new users, it is Yet Another Compiler Error that they have to figure out how to solve, contributing to the sense that Rust nags nags and obstructs rather than assists & guides. Therefore, I think time has shown that this has been a detriment to user experience, rather than a helpful reminder. That leaves only the first reason not to implement this: implicit allocations. That problem was happily resolved in June 2017: rust-lang#42613 provided an alternative implementation which efficiently avoids allocations. Given that, I think it is time that we implement `Display` for both `Path` and `PathBuf` and deprecate the `Path::display` method. r? @alexcrichton cc @rust-lang/libs [rfc474]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0474-path-reform.md)
#38879