add VecDeque::splice by Qelxiros · Pull Request #147247 · rust-lang/rust

Qelxiros · 2025-10-01T22:30:47Z

Tracking issue: #146975

rustbot · 2025-10-01T22:30:51Z

rustbot has assigned @tgross35.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

antonilol · 2025-10-12T18:58:02Z

Thanks for working on this!

tgross35 · 2025-10-16T22:07:56Z

Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this, still behind on my reviews

r? libs

bors · 2025-11-01T11:50:12Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #148337) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2025-11-08T16:07:18Z

+ // This will set drain.remaining to 0, so its drop won't try to read deallocated memory on
+ // drop.
+ self.drain.by_ref().for_each(drop);
+


Do we need something like
rust/library/alloc/src/vec/splice.rs
Line 62 in 87f9dcd
self.drain.iter = (&[]).iter();
here to avoid problems with Drain::drop?

As I understand it, the for_each will ensure that remaining is set to 0, so Drain::drop won't drop anything. I intentionally use Drain::drop to put the elements together again properly.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2025-11-08T17:00:55Z

+ unsafe fn move_tail(&mut self, additional: usize) {
+ let deque = unsafe { self.deque.as_mut() };
+ let tail_start = deque.len + self.drain_len;
+ deque.buf.reserve(tail_start + self.tail_len, additional);


Do we have coverage for this reserve running? Normally growing VecDeque requires extra logic AFAICT, not just reserving the underlying buffer.

It should run anytime the new iterator (replace_with) has a different length than the removed elements, which is definitely tested. Do you have a more specific case in which this could cause issues?

Qelxiros · 2025-11-17T16:26:03Z

I'm not sure why the CI isn't running, but all the requested changes should be good
@rustbot ready

Mark-Simulacrum · 2025-12-28T18:37:39Z

r=me with a rebase

rustbot · 2025-12-29T18:31:35Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

Qelxiros · 2025-12-29T18:32:48Z

@Mark-Simulacrum should be good, but I don't have permission to r=you.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2025-12-30T19:17:25Z

@bors r+

bors · 2025-12-30T19:17:28Z

📌 Commit 0763954 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-12-30T19:18:39Z

⌛ Testing commit 0763954 with merge 0e89999...

bors · 2025-12-30T22:39:08Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 0e89999 to main...

github-actions · 2025-12-30T22:41:42Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing f0864c8 (parent) -> 0e89999 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 322 test diffs

Stage 1

vec_deque::test_splice: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_forget: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_out_of_bounds: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_range: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_range2: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_items_zero_sized: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_out_of_bounds: [missing] -> pass (J0)
vec_deque::test_splice_unbounded: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Stage 2

vec_deque::test_splice: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_forget: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_out_of_bounds: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_range: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_inclusive_range2: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_items_zero_sized: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_out_of_bounds: [missing] -> pass (J1)
vec_deque::test_splice_unbounded: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Additionally, 306 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 0e8999942552691afc20495af6227eca8ab0af05 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

dist-aarch64-linux: 8820.3s -> 6358.7s (-27.9%)
dist-aarch64-apple: 5676.9s -> 6825.5s (+20.2%)
dist-ohos-armv7: 4115.0s -> 4568.8s (+11.0%)
dist-powerpc64le-linux-musl: 5227.4s -> 5798.1s (+10.9%)
aarch64-msvc-2: 6349.0s -> 5658.2s (-10.9%)
dist-loongarch64-linux: 5321.4s -> 5889.0s (+10.7%)
dist-x86_64-apple: 8164.4s -> 7396.3s (-9.4%)
dist-loongarch64-musl: 5221.9s -> 5703.9s (+9.2%)
dist-apple-various: 4641.9s -> 4246.5s (-8.5%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 4002.2s -> 4324.5s (+8.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2025-12-30T23:20:35Z

Finished benchmarking commit (0e89999): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.8%	[2.3%, 7.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.8%	[2.3%, 7.3%]	2

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 481.996s -> 480.336s (-0.34%)
Artifact size: 390.85 MiB -> 390.83 MiB (-0.01%)

rustbot assigned tgross35 Oct 1, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 1, 2025

antonilol mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2025
Tracking Issue for new VecDeque methods prepend, extend_front, splice, extend_from_within and prepend_from_within#146975
Open
9 tasks

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum and unassigned tgross35 Oct 16, 2025

Mark-Simulacrum requested changes Nov 8, 2025
View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 8, 2025

Qelxiros force-pushed the vecdeque_splice branch from a9f20e3 to 003ebdaCompare November 17, 2025 16:16

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

Qelxiros force-pushed the vecdeque_splice branch from 003ebda to f01287cCompare November 17, 2025 16:23

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

Qelxiros requested a review from Mark-Simulacrum November 17, 2025 16:25

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 17, 2025

add VecDeque::splice
0763954

Qelxiros force-pushed the vecdeque_splice branch from f01287c to 0763954Compare December 29, 2025 18:31

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 30, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 30, 2025

bors merged commit 0e89999 into rust-lang:mainDec 30, 2025
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Dec 30, 2025

This was referenced Dec 30, 2025
Vec::push in consts MVP #147893
Merged
Stabilize alloc_layout_extra#148769
Merged

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

Qelxiros commented Oct 1, 2025• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

antonilol commented Oct 12, 2025

Uh oh!

tgross35 commented Oct 16, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Qelxiros commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented Dec 28, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Dec 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Qelxiros commented Dec 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented Dec 30, 2025

Test differences

Stage 1

Stage 2

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Dec 30, 2025

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

Qelxiros commented Oct 1, 2025•
edited by rustbot
Loading