A successful advance is now signalled by returning `0` and other values now represent the remaining number
of steps that couldn't be advanced as opposed to the amount of steps that have been advanced during a partial advance_by.
This simplifies adapters a bit, replacing some `match`/`if` with arithmetic. Whether this is beneficial overall depends
on whether `advance_by` is mostly used as a building-block for other iterator methods and adapters or whether
we also see uses by users where `Result` might be more useful.
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
The `advance_by(n)` docs state that in the error case `Err(k)` that k is always less than n.
It also states that `advance_by(0)` may return `Err(0)` to indicate an exhausted iterator.
These statements are inconsistent.
Since only one implementation (Skip) actually made use of that I changed it to return Ok(()) in that case too.
While adding some tests I also found a bug in `Take::advance_back_by`.
This stabilizes the functionality in slice_partition_at_index,
but under the names `select_nth_unstable*`. The functions
`partition_at_index*` are left as deprecated, to be removed in
a later release.
Closes#55300
Updated issue to #75027
Update to rm oob access
And hopefully fix docs as well
Fixed naming conflict in test
Fix test which used 1-indexing
Nth starts from 0, woops
Fix a bunch of off by 1 errors
See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=757b311987e3fae1ca47122969acda5a
Add even more off by 1 errors
And also write `next` and `next_back` in terms of `nth` and `nth_back`.
Run fmt
Fix forgetting to change fn name in test
add nth_back test & document unsafe
Remove as_ref().unwrap()
Documented occurrences of unsafe, noting what invariants are maintained
