Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add Vec visualization to understand capacity #76066
Add Vec visualization to understand capacity #76066
Changes from 4 commits
9c1415e
ea337c6
f2bd46b
53af7b8
a919516
55ad7f2
44e9b7f
6900744
79918c1
62ba5b1
702662e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
"Stack" is not correct. Those three fields don't have to live on the stack, e.g.
Box<Vec<T>>
.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.
Well,
Box<Vec<T>>
is not good, I believe we already mentioned this somewhere in the book,Vec
itself is already sort of a smart pointer, no point wrapping box around. But in this case it is talking aboutVec<T>
which it is on the stack. I think we don't need to add note on this since this is aBox
thing, if we want to add it should be inBox
.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.
A vec can also live inside some other struct that lives on the heap, e.g. an
Arc
. Maybe just call it "struct"?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.
But doesn't
struct
andheap
when used together feels weird?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.
Maybe just remove "Stack". We simply don't know where those three values live. We just know that the lower box lives on the heap.
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.
How about
Stack/Heap
? Since it could be either stack or heap.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.
Try 'Layout' instead, maybe?
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.
Maybe something like "The Vec object itself" and "The data on the heap".
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.
Layout isn't clear where it will be.
Too long. Also having "object" word itself can confuse a lot of people. "The data on the heap" is incorrect, since it could be in the stack too.
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.
into_raw_parts
andfrom_raw_parts
use(ptr, length, capacity)
, not(ptr, capacity, length)
. It might be good to use the same order here.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 is intentionally different, see #76066 (comment).
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.
@jyn514 That comment suggests to use a different layout than the real layout. The 'real' layout is (RawVec, len), which is effectively a (ptr, cap, len). Changing it to (ptr, len, cap) as I suggest does make it different from the actual layout, just like the8472 asked for.
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.
Weird, I didn't notice this, I thought I used
len
followed bycapacity
.