-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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 std::io::Seek
instance for std::io::Take
#138023
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
library/std/src/io/mod.rs
Outdated
#[stable(feature = "seek_io_take", since = "CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION")] | ||
pub fn position(&self) -> u64 { |
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.
API needs to start out as unstable
where possible, the only exception is trait implementations because that part doesn't currently work.
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 can't just change it to unstable
because then the compiler complains that seek_io_take
is both stable and unstable. I see a few options:
- mark unstable the trait implementation
- I have another feature for position
- make position private (for now?)
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.
It can just be a separate feature gate
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 changed it to be unstable and put behind a different feature gate seek_io_take_position
.
It doesn't look like #97227 was ever accepted by libs-api. Could you file an API change proposal? This is an issue template at https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues. Please include the proposed The trait implementation is insta-stable so it will need FCP if accepted. |
library/std/src/io/mod.rs
Outdated
let offset_from_start = match pos { | ||
SeekFrom::Start(offset) => offset, | ||
SeekFrom::End(offset) => { | ||
if offset > 0 { |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
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.
what's with the funny python-indexing-style logic?
ok, maybe your logic doesn't do that but it is written in a very confusing way with unsigned_abs
everywhere.
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 hopefully easier to understand implementation:
(I also implemented some other Seek
methods and implemented the range-limited seeking as suggested in rust-lang/libs-team#555 (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.
The usage of unsigned_abs
was to deal with u64
, i64
and the fact that I need to seek the inner
from Current
. I'm ok with your implementation though. I have one question about it: your implementation makes use of the unstable features unsigned_signed_diff
and seek_stream_len
, is it fine to use unstable features in the rust library? Should I just add the two unstable features to the crate attributes?
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.
afaik it's generally fine to use unstable library features in the rust standard library, those are implemented in the same git repository, so if they need to change or are removed, the code using them can be updated at the same time.
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.
@programmerjake I pushed your implementation with a132fcb. I also removed the tests that now fail and added the needed unstable feature to library/std/src/lib.rs
.
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.
nice! you'll probably want to add some tests that out-of-bounds seeks actually error.
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.
Good point. I added five new tests with 6ee1a13:
take_seek_out_of_bounds_start
checksStart
with offset bigger thanlen
take_seek_out_of_bounds_end_forward
checksEnd
with positive non-zero offsewttake_seek_out_of_bounds_end_before_start
checksEnd
with offset smaller than-len
take_seek_out_of_bounds_current_before_start
checksCurrent
with offset that pushes position before zerotake_seek_out_of_bounds_current_after_end
checksCurrent
with offset that pushes position afterlen
this looks generally pretty good to me, the next steps are to get someone to second the ACP and to get team signoff here (because the trait impl is insta-stable), I can't do either of those. @rustbot label +needs-fcp,+T-libs-api |
if you think you're done writing the code, you can comment |
@rustbot ready |
i guess i didn't notice it was already labeled as waiting on review...sorry, that wasn't necessary. |
No problem 😄. I created the PR and I should have checked. |
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.
Looks good to me (not a reviewer). The logic seems sound and it even handles the pathological case of adapting absolute offsets over isize::MAX
to relative.
library/std/src/io/mod.rs
Outdated
}; | ||
while new_position != self.position() { | ||
if let Some(offset) = new_position.checked_signed_diff(self.position()) { | ||
self.seek_relative(offset)?; |
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.
You could eliminate the range check from self.seek_relative
by manually inlining it.
--- a/library/std/src/io/mod.rs
+++ b/library/std/src/io/mod.rs
@@ -3086,14 +3086,13 @@ fn seek(&mut self, pos: SeekFrom) -> Result<u64> {
};
while new_position != self.position() {
if let Some(offset) = new_position.checked_signed_diff(self.position()) {
- self.seek_relative(offset)?;
+ self.inner.seek_relative(offset)?;
+ self.limit = self.limit.wrapping_sub(offset as u64);
break;
}
- if new_position > self.position() {
- self.seek_relative(i64::MAX)?;
- } else {
- self.seek_relative(i64::MIN)?;
- }
+ let offset = if new_position > self.position() { i64::MAX } else { i64::MIN };
+ self.inner.seek_relative(offset)?;
+ self.limit = self.limit.wrapping_sub(offset as u64);
}
Ok(new_position)
}
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.
ok, though I'd be surprised if LLVM couldn't already do that optimization itself.
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 pushed the manual inlining with 17989cb.
Since you update
Initially, I thought the inconsistency with |
Library tracking issue #97227.
len
field toTake
to keep track of the original number of bytes thatTake
could readposition()
method to return the current position of the cursor insideTake
std::io::Seek
forstd::io::Take