Upgrade to bitvec 1.0.0

[wcampbell0x2a]

Re-based #246 ontop of master, see previous conversation about decrease in performance for bitvec v1.0.0.

Perf:

deku_read_byte          time:   [11.305 ns 11.324 ns 11.345 ns]
                        change: [+94.803% +96.463% +97.712%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 13 outliers among 100 measurements (13.00%)
  8 (8.00%) low severe
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  3 (3.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe

deku_write_byte         time:   [49.903 ns 49.993 ns 50.090 ns]
                        change: [+3.0667% +4.5991% +5.6636%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 15 outliers among 100 measurements (15.00%)
  8 (8.00%) low severe
  5 (5.00%) low mild
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe

deku_read_bits          time:   [503.43 ns 507.66 ns 512.69 ns]
                        change: [+47.073% +48.526% +50.216%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 25 outliers among 100 measurements (25.00%)
  10 (10.00%) low mild
  6 (6.00%) high mild
  9 (9.00%) high severe

deku_write_bits         time:   [90.864 ns 91.240 ns 91.599 ns]
                        change: [+23.361% +24.209% +25.044%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
  2 (2.00%) high mild

deku_read_enum          time:   [17.811 ns 17.857 ns 17.925 ns]
                        change: [+70.445% +71.741% +72.950%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 13 outliers among 100 measurements (13.00%)
  5 (5.00%) low severe
  6 (6.00%) low mild
  2 (2.00%) high severe

deku_write_enum         time:   [82.910 ns 83.161 ns 83.523 ns]
                        change: [+4.7235% +10.857% +18.023%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 10 outliers among 100 measurements (10.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low severe
  4 (4.00%) low mild
  5 (5.00%) high severe

deku_read_vec           time:   [770.09 ns 771.19 ns 772.52 ns]
                        change: [+48.267% +48.711% +49.148%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 16 outliers among 100 measurements (16.00%)
  10 (10.00%) low severe
  2 (2.00%) low mild
  2 (2.00%) high mild
  2 (2.00%) high severe

deku_write_vec          time:   [3.6065 µs 3.6152 µs 3.6257 µs]
                        change: [+4.4250% +4.7500% +5.1047%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
  3 (3.00%) low severe
  2 (2.00%) low mild
  3 (3.00%) high severe

deku_read_vec_perf      time:   [786.85 ns 789.84 ns 793.66 ns]
                        change: [+61.063% +63.122% +64.875%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 12 outliers among 100 measurements (12.00%)
  4 (4.00%) low severe
  3 (3.00%) low mild
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  4 (4.00%) high severe

deku_write_vec_perf     time:   [3.7249 µs 3.7338 µs 3.7437 µs]
                        change: [-1.0642% -0.7533% -0.4036%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Change within noise threshold.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
  3 (3.00%) low severe
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  2 (2.00%) high mild
  2 (2.00%) high severe

[duskmoon314]

Does the performance issue block this?

I'm trying to use Deku in my experimental crate but suffering from the problem mentioned in #296. How can we help to push forward this PR?

[sharksforarms]

Looks like it's time to push towards bitvec 1.0.0, if we release this change as a major release version, clients will need to opt-in to the performance difference (although they may need to opt-in just tot be able to build again, unless they use an older deku).

Related: #296

[wcampbell0x2a]

Agreed, hopefully we can figure out the performance later.