Update VecDeque implementation to use head+len instead of head+tail
(See #99805)
This changes `alloc::collections::VecDeque`'s internal representation from using head and tail indices to using a head index and a length field. It has a few advantages over the current design:
* It allows the buffer to be of length 0, which means the `VecDeque::new` new longer has to allocate and could be changed to a `const fn`
* It allows the `VecDeque` to fill the buffer completely, unlike the old implementation, which always had to leave a free space
* It removes the restriction for the size to be a power of two, allowing it to properly `shrink_to_fit`, unlike the old `VecDeque`
* The above points also combine to allow the `Vec<T> -> VecDeque<T>` conversion to be very cheap and guaranteed O(1). I mention this in the `From<Vec<T>>` impl, but it's not a strong guarantee just yet, as that would likely need some form of API change proposal.
All the tests seem to pass for the new `VecDeque`, with some slight adjustments.
r? `@scottmcm`
Clarify and restrict when `{Arc,Rc}::get_unchecked_mut` is allowed.
(Tracking issue for `{Arc,Rc}::get_unchecked_mut`: #63292)
(I'm using `Rc` in this comment, but it applies for `Arc` all the same).
As currently documented, `Rc::get_unchecked_mut` can lead to unsoundness when multiple `Rc`/`Weak` pointers to the same allocation exist. The current documentation only requires that other `Rc`/`Weak` pointers to the same allocation "must not be dereferenced for the duration of the returned borrow". This can lead to unsoundness in (at least) two ways: variance, and `Rc<str>`/`Rc<[u8]>` aliasing. ([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=d7e2d091c389f463d121630ab0a37320)).
This PR changes the documentation of `Rc::get_unchecked_mut` to restrict usage to when all `Rc<T>`/`Weak<T>` have the exact same `T` (including lifetimes). I believe this is sufficient to prevent unsoundness, while still allowing `get_unchecked_mut` to be called on an aliased `Rc` as long as the safety contract is upheld by the caller.
## Alternatives
* A less strict, but still sound alternative would be to say that the caller must only write values which are valid for all aliased `Rc`/`Weak` inner types. (This was [mentioned](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63292#issuecomment-568284090) in the tracking issue). This may be too complicated to clearly express in the documentation.
* A more strict alternative would be to say that there must not be any aliased `Rc`/`Weak` pointers, i.e. it is required that get_mut would return `Some(_)`. (This was also mentioned in the tracking issue). There is at least one codebase that this would cause to become unsound ([here](https://github.com/kaimast/lsm-rs/blob/be5a164d770d850d905e510e2966ad4b1cc9aa5e/src/memtable.rs#L166), where additional locking is used to ensure unique access to an aliased `Rc<T>`; I saw this because it was linked on the tracking issue).
Attempt to reuse `Vec<T>` backing storage for `Rc/Arc<[T]>`
If a `Vec<T>` has sufficient capacity to store the inner `RcBox<[T]>`, we can just reuse the existing allocation and shift the elements up, instead of making a new allocation.
run alloc benchmarks in Miri and fix UB
Miri since recently has a "fake monotonic clock" that works even with isolation. Its measurements are not very meaningful but it means we can run these benches and check them for UB.
And that's a good thing since there was UB here: fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104096.
r? ``@thomcc``
disable btree size tests on Miri
Seems fine not to run these in Miri, they can't have UB anyway. And this lets us do layout randomization in Miri.
r? ``@thomcc``
bors