Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

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
Next Next commit
rewrite
  • Loading branch information
lcnr committed Apr 18, 2023
commit ce283752db4088259160c55d89af612f1dee5293
61 changes: 33 additions & 28 deletions text/3417-dropck-eyepatch-v3.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@
# Summary
[summary]: #summary

Cleanup the rules for implicit drops by splitting `#[may_dangle]` into two separate attributes:
`#[only_dropped]` and `#[fully_ignored]`. Change `PhantomData` to get completely ignored
by dropck as its current behavior is confusing and inconsistent.
Cleanup the rules for implicit drops by adding an argument for `#[may_dangle]` on type
parameters: `#[may_dangle(can_drop)]` and `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]`. Change `PhantomData`
to get completely ignored by dropck as its current behavior is confusing and inconsistent.

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -83,18 +83,20 @@ assumes that all generic parameters of the `Drop` impl are used:
[playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=e604bcaecb7b2b4cf7fd0440faf165ac).

In case a manual `Drop` impl does not access a generic parameter, you can add
`#[fully_unused]` or `#[only_dropped]` to that parameter. This **unsafely** asserts
`#[may_dangle]` to that parameter. This **unsafely** asserts
that the parameter is either completely unused when dropping your type or only
recursively dropped.
recursively dropped. For type parameters, you have to declare whether you
recursively drop instances of `T`. If so, you should use `#[may_dangle(droppable)]`.
If not, you may use `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]`.

```rust
struct MyType<'s> {
reference: &'s str,
struct MyType<T> {
generic: T,
needs_drop: String,
}
// The impl has to be `unsafe` as the compiler does may not check
// that `'s` is actually unused.
unsafe impl<#[only_dropped] 's> Drop for MyType<'s> {
// The impl has to be `unsafe` as the compiler may not check
// that `T` is actually unused.
unsafe impl<#[may_dangle(droppable)] T> Drop for MyType<T> {
fn drop(&mut self) {
// println!("{}", reference); // this would be unsound
println!("{}", needs_drop);
Expand All @@ -111,13 +113,12 @@ fn can_drop_dead_reference() {
}
// We drop `_x` here even though `reference` is no longer live.
//
// This is accepted as `'s` is marked as `#[only_dropped]` in the
// This is accepted as `T` is marked as `#[may_dangle(can_drop)]` in the
// `Drop` impl of `MyType`.
}
```

The ability to differentiate between `#[fully_unused]` and `#[only_dropped]` is significant
for type parameters:
`Drop` impls for collections tend to require `#[may_dangle(droppable)]`:

```rust
pub struct BTreeMap<K, V> {
Expand All @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ unsafe impl<#[only_dropped] K, #[only_dropped] V> Drop for BTreeMap<K, V> {
}
```

A type where `#[fully_unused]` would be useful is a `Weak` pointer for a variant of `Rc`
A type where `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]` would be useful is a `Weak` pointer for a variant of `Rc`
where the value is dropped when the last `Rc` goes out of scope. Dropping a `Weak` pointer
would never access `T` in this case.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is helpful and avoids the main problem I saw in the previous RFC -- it'd be great to expand a bit on where the two modes should be used in the stdlib to help reader understand the role of them. Also, what is an example of code that compiles because of this but wouldn't otherwise?


Expand All @@ -151,43 +152,47 @@ When implicitly dropping a variable of type `T`, liveness requirements are compu
- If `T` does not have any drop glue, do not add any requirements.
- If `T` is a trait object, `T` has to be live.
- If `T` has an explicit `Drop` impl, require all generic argument to be live, unless
- they are marked with `#[fully_unused]`, in which case they are ignored,
- or they are marked with `#[only_dropped]`, in which case recurse into the generic argument.
- they marked with `#[may_dangle]`:
- arguments for lifetime parameters marked `#[may_dangle]` and type parameters
marked `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]` are ignored,
- we recurse into arguments for type parameters marked `#[may_dangle(droppable)]`.
- Regardless of whether `T` implements `Drop`, recurse into all types *owned* by `T`:
- references, raw pointers, function pointers, function items and scalars do not own
anything. They can be trivially dropped.
- tuples and arrays consider their element types to be owned.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for arrays this is currently also a bit inconsistent, see rust-lang/rust#110288 and https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/326866-t-types.2Fnominated/topic/.23110288.3A.20.60.5BT.3B.200.5D.60.20adding.20outlives.20requirements.20to.20dropck for details about this.

Shouldn't matter for this RFC apart from deciding whether to add "[T; 0] does not consider T to be owned".

- all fields (of all variants) of ADTs are considered owned. We consider all variants
for enums. The only exception here is `ManuallyDrop<U>` which is not considered to own `U`. `PhantomData<U>` does not have any fields and therefore also does not consider
for enums. The only exception here is `ManuallyDrop<U>` which is not considered to own `U`.
`PhantomData<U>` does not have any fields and therefore also does not consider
`U` to be owned.
- closures and generators own their captured upvars.

Checking drop impls may error for generic parameters which are known to be incorrectly marked:
- `#[fully_unused]` parameters which are recursively owned
- `#[only_dropped]` parameters which are required to be live by a recursively owned type
- `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]` parameters which are recursively owned
- `#[may_dangle(droppable)]` parameters which are required to be live by a recursively owned type

This cannot catch all misuses, as the parameters can be incorrectly used by the `Drop` impl itself.
We therefore require the impl to be marked as `unsafe`.

## How this differs from the status quo

Instead of `#[fully_unused]` and `#[only_dropped]`,there is only the `#[may_dangle]` attribute which
skips the generic parameter. This is equivalent to the behavior of `#[fully_unused]` and relies on the recursion
into types owned by `T` to figure out the correct constraints.
Right now there is only the `#[may_dangle]` attribute which skips the generic parameter.
This is equivalent to the behavior of `#[may_dangle(must_not_use)]` and relies on the recursion
into types owned by `T` to figure out the correct constraints. This is now explicitly annotated
using `#[may_dangle(droppable)]`.

`PhantomData<U>` currently considers `U` to be owned while not having drop glue itself. This means
that `(PhantomData<PrintOnDrop<'s>>, String)` requires `'s` to be live while
`(PhantomData<PrintOnDrop<'s>>, u32)` does not. This is required for get the
behavior of `#[only_dropped]` for parameters otherwise not owned by adding `PhantomData` as a field.
One can easily forget this, which caused the [unsound](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76367)
behavior of `#[may_dangle(droppable)]` for parameters otherwise not owned by adding `PhantomData`
as a field. One can easily forget this, which caused the
[unsound](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76367)
[issues](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99408) mentioned above.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

It requires an additional attribute when compared with `#[may_dangle]` and also proposes checks that the
attributes are correctly used. This adds a small amount of implementation complexity to the compiler.
These new attributes are still not fully checked by the compiler and require `unsafe`.
This adds a small amount of implementation complexity to the compiler while not not being
fully checked and therefore requiring `unsafe`.

This RFC does not explicitly exclude stabilizing these two attributes, as they are clearer and far less
dangerous to use when compared with `#[may_dangle]`. Stabilizing these attributes will make it harder to
Expand All @@ -205,7 +210,7 @@ A more general extension to deal with partially invalid types is far from trivia
assume types to always be well-formed and any approach which generalizes `#[may_dangle]` will
have major consequences for how well-formedness is handled. This impacts many - often implicit -
interactions and assumptions. It is highly unlikely that we will have the capacity for any such change
in the near future. The benefits from such are change are likely to be fairly limited while
in the near future. The benefits from such are change are also likely to be fairly limited while
adding significant complexity.

# Prior art
Expand Down