-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 245
Fix off-by-one. #243
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
Merged
Fix off-by-one. #243
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev
Previous commit
Fix.
- Loading branch information
commit 32b559ee8cfb49dcf8468a8ba2301c90b2597ee5
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
why bother with this complex logic?
Isn't better to use
Vec::new() / Vec::with_capacity()andVec::push?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, it's a performance optimization (hopefuly measureable), which is justified, since this code might be on a hot path.
Also this logic is not that complex imho, seems it was just untested properly.
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 for one kind of agree with Niklas here: it's a bit odd and I'm surprised to learn it's faster to init a
vecwithvec![0u8; 123]thanVec::with_capacity(123).(No action needed here, I'm just curious)
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'm about to add benches for
Bytesto be continued :PThere 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.
Wow, thanks for making me realize this is actually a
vec. I was pretty sure that we just allocate an array here (but obviously we don't cause it's not a constant size)I'm really curious about the performance indeed, as just using
pushinstead of direct access seems way less error prone, andwith_capacityshould ensure that there are no re-allocations.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 really hope there's no difference in performance! :)