The Dark Arts of Advanced and Unsafe Rust Programming

NOTE: This is a draft document, and may contain serious errors

Instead of the programs I had hoped for, there came only a shuddering blackness and ineffable loneliness; and I saw at last a fearful truth which no one had ever dared to breathe before — the unwhisperable secret of secrets — The fact that this language of stone and stridor is not a sentient perpetuation of Rust as London is of Old London and Paris of Old Paris, but that it is in fact quite unsafe, its sprawling body imperfectly embalmed and infested with queer animate things which have nothing to do with it as it was in compilation.

This book digs into all the awful details that are necessary to understand in order to write correct Unsafe Rust programs. Due to the nature of this problem, it may lead to unleashing untold horrors that shatter your psyche into a billion infinitesimal fragments of despair.

Should you wish a long and happy career of writing Rust programs, you should turn back now and forget you ever saw this book. It is not necessary. However if you intend to write unsafe code – or just want to dig into the guts of the language – this book contains invaluable information.

Unlike The Book we will be assuming considerable prior knowledge. In particular, you should be comfortable with basic systems programming and Rust. If you don’t feel comfortable with these topics, you should consider reading The Book first. Though we will not be assuming that you have, and will take care to occasionally give a refresher on the basics where appropriate. You can skip straight to this book if you want; just know that we won’t be explaining everything from the ground up.

To be clear, this book goes into deep detail. We’re going to dig into exception-safety, pointer aliasing, memory models, and even some type-theory. We will also be spending a lot of time talking about the different kinds of safety and guarantees.

How Safe and Unsafe Interact

So what’s the relationship between Safe and Unsafe Rust? How do they interact?

Rust models the separation between Safe and Unsafe Rust with the unsafe keyword, which can be thought as a sort of foreign function interface (FFI) between Safe and Unsafe Rust. This is the magic behind why we can say Safe Rust is a safe language: all the scary unsafe bits are relegated exclusively to FFI just like every other safe language.

However because one language is a subset of the other, the two can be cleanly intermixed as long as the boundary between Safe and Unsafe Rust is denoted with the unsafe keyword. No need to write headers, initialize runtimes, or any of that other FFI boiler-plate.

There are several places unsafe can appear in Rust today, which can largely be grouped into two categories:

• There are unchecked contracts here. To declare you understand this, I require you to write unsafe elsewhere:
  • On functions, unsafe is declaring the function to be unsafe to call. Users of the function must check the documentation to determine what this means, and then have to write unsafe somewhere to identify that they’re aware of the danger.
  • On trait declarations, unsafe is declaring that implementing the trait is an unsafe operation, as it has contracts that other unsafe code is free to trust blindly. (More on this below.)
• I am declaring that I have, to the best of my knowledge, adhered to the unchecked contracts:
  • On trait implementations, unsafe is declaring that the contract of the unsafe trait has been upheld.
  • On blocks, unsafe is declaring any unsafety from an unsafe operation within to be handled, and therefore the parent function is safe.

There is also #[unsafe_no_drop_flag], which is a special case that exists for historical reasons and is in the process of being phased out. See the section on drop flags for details.

Some examples of unsafe functions:

• slice::get_unchecked will perform unchecked indexing, allowing memory safety to be freely violated.
• every raw pointer to sized type has intrinsic offset method that invokes Undefined Behavior if it is not “in bounds” as defined by LLVM.
• mem::transmute reinterprets some value as having the given type, bypassing type safety in arbitrary ways. (see [conversions] for details)
• All FFI functions are unsafe because they can do arbitrary things. C being an obvious culprit, but generally any language can do something that Rust isn’t happy about.

As of Rust 1.0 there are exactly two unsafe traits:

• Send is a marker trait (it has no actual API) that promises implementors are safe to send (move) to another thread.
• Sync is a marker trait that promises that threads can safely share implementors through a shared reference.

The need for unsafe traits boils down to the fundamental property of safe code:

No matter how completely awful Safe code is, it can’t cause Undefined Behavior.

This means that Unsafe Rust, the royal vanguard of Undefined Behavior, has to be super paranoid about generic safe code. To be clear, Unsafe Rust is totally free to trust specific safe code. Anything else would degenerate into infinite spirals of paranoid despair. In particular it’s generally regarded as ok to trust the standard library to be correct. std is effectively an extension of the language, and you really just have to trust the language. If std fails to uphold the guarantees it declares, then it’s basically a language bug.

That said, it would be best to minimize needlessly relying on properties of concrete safe code. Bugs happen! Of course, I must reinforce that this is only a concern for Unsafe code. Safe code can blindly trust anyone and everyone as far as basic memory-safety is concerned.

On the other hand, safe traits are free to declare arbitrary contracts, but because implementing them is safe, unsafe code can’t trust those contracts to actually be upheld. This is different from the concrete case because anyone can randomly implement the interface. There is something fundamentally different about trusting a particular piece of code to be correct, and trusting all the code that will ever be written to be correct.

For instance Rust has PartialOrd and Ord traits to try to differentiate between types which can “just” be compared, and those that actually implement a total ordering. Pretty much every API that wants to work with data that can be compared wants Ord data. For instance, a sorted map like BTreeMap doesn’t even make sense for partially ordered types. If you claim to implement Ord for a type, but don’t actually provide a proper total ordering, BTreeMap will get really confused and start making a total mess of itself. Data that is inserted may be impossible to find!

But that’s okay. BTreeMap is safe, so it guarantees that even if you give it a completely garbage Ord implementation, it will still do something safe. You won’t start reading uninitialized or unallocated memory. In fact, BTreeMap manages to not actually lose any of your data. When the map is dropped, all the destructors will be successfully called! Hooray!

However BTreeMap is implemented using a modest spoonful of Unsafe Rust (most collections are). That means that it’s not necessarily trivially true that a bad Ord implementation will make BTreeMap behave safely. BTreeMap must be sure not to rely on Ord where safety is at stake. Ord is provided by safe code, and safety is not safe code’s responsibility to uphold.

But wouldn’t it be grand if there was some way for Unsafe to trust some trait contracts somewhere? This is the problem that unsafe traits tackle: by marking the trait itself as unsafe to implement, unsafe code can trust the implementation to uphold the trait’s contract. Although the trait implementation may be incorrect in arbitrary other ways.

For instance, given a hypothetical UnsafeOrd trait, this is technically a valid implementation:

unsafe impl UnsafeOrd for MyType {
      fn cmp(&self, other: &Self) -> Ordering {
          Ordering::Equal
      }
  }

But it’s probably not the implementation you want.

Rust has traditionally avoided making traits unsafe because it makes Unsafe pervasive, which is not desirable. The reason Send and Sync are unsafe is because thread safety is a fundamental property that unsafe code cannot possibly hope to defend against in the same way it would defend against a bad Ord implementation. The only way to possibly defend against thread-unsafety would be to not use threading at all. Making every load and store atomic isn’t even sufficient, because it’s possible for complex invariants to exist between disjoint locations in memory. For instance, the pointer and capacity of a Vec must be in sync.

Even concurrent paradigms that are traditionally regarded as Totally Safe like message passing implicitly rely on some notion of thread safety – are you really message-passing if you pass a pointer? Send and Sync therefore require some fundamental level of trust that Safe code can’t provide, so they must be unsafe to implement. To help obviate the pervasive unsafety that this would introduce, Send (resp. Sync) is automatically derived for all types composed only of Send (resp. Sync) values. 99% of types are Send and Sync, and 99% of those never actually say it (the remaining 1% is overwhelmingly synchronization primitives).

Working with Unsafe

Rust generally only gives us the tools to talk about Unsafe Rust in a scoped and binary manner. Unfortunately, reality is significantly more complicated than that. For instance, consider the following toy function:

fn index(idx: usize, arr: &[u8]) -> Option<u8> {
      if idx < arr.len() {
          unsafe {
              Some(*arr.get_unchecked(idx))
          }
      } else {
          None
      }
  }

Clearly, this function is safe. We check that the index is in bounds, and if it is, index into the array in an unchecked manner. But even in such a trivial function, the scope of the unsafe block is questionable. Consider changing the < to a <=:

fn index(idx: usize, arr: &[u8]) -> Option<u8> {
      if idx <= arr.len() {
          unsafe {
              Some(*arr.get_unchecked(idx))
          }
      } else {
          None
      }
  }

This program is now unsound, and yet we only modified safe code. This is the fundamental problem of safety: it’s non-local. The soundness of our unsafe operations necessarily depends on the state established by otherwise “safe” operations.

Safety is modular in the sense that opting into unsafety doesn’t require you to consider arbitrary other kinds of badness. For instance, doing an unchecked index into a slice doesn’t mean you suddenly need to worry about the slice being null or containing uninitialized memory. Nothing fundamentally changes. However safety isn’t modular in the sense that programs are inherently stateful and your unsafe operations may depend on arbitrary other state.

Trickier than that is when we get into actual statefulness. Consider a simple implementation of Vec:

use std::ptr;
  
  // Note this definition is insufficient. See the section on implementing Vec.
  pub struct Vec<T> {
      ptr: *mut T,
      len: usize,
      cap: usize,
  }
  
  // Note this implementation does not correctly handle zero-sized types.
  // We currently live in a nice imaginary world of only positive fixed-size
  // types.
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      pub fn push(&mut self, elem: T) {
          if self.len == self.cap {
              // not important for this example
              self.reallocate();
          }
          unsafe {
              ptr::write(self.ptr.offset(self.len as isize), elem);
              self.len += 1;
          }
      }
  
      # fn reallocate(&mut self) { }
  }

This code is simple enough to reasonably audit and verify. Now consider adding the following method:

fn make_room(&mut self) {
      // grow the capacity
      self.cap += 1;
  }

This code is 100% Safe Rust but it is also completely unsound. Changing the capacity violates the invariants of Vec (that cap reflects the allocated space in the Vec). This is not something the rest of Vec can guard against. It has to trust the capacity field because there’s no way to verify it.

unsafe does more than pollute a whole function: it pollutes a whole module. Generally, the only bullet-proof way to limit the scope of unsafe code is at the module boundary with privacy.

However this works perfectly. The existence of make_room is not a problem for the soundness of Vec because we didn’t mark it as public. Only the module that defines this function can call it. Also, make_room directly accesses the private fields of Vec, so it can only be written in the same module as Vec.

It is therefore possible for us to write a completely safe abstraction that relies on complex invariants. This is critical to the relationship between Safe Rust and Unsafe Rust. We have already seen that Unsafe code must trust some Safe code, but can’t trust generic Safe code. It can’t trust an arbitrary implementor of a trait or any function that was passed to it to be well-behaved in a way that safe code doesn’t care about.

However if unsafe code couldn’t prevent client safe code from messing with its state in arbitrary ways, safety would be a lost cause. Thankfully, it can prevent arbitrary code from messing with critical state due to privacy.

Safety lives!

repr(Rust)

First and foremost, all types have an alignment specified in bytes. The alignment of a type specifies what addresses are valid to store the value at. A value of alignment n must only be stored at an address that is a multiple of n. So alignment 2 means you must be stored at an even address, and 1 means that you can be stored anywhere. Alignment is at least 1, and always a power of 2. Most primitives are generally aligned to their size, although this is platform-specific behavior. In particular, on x86 u64 and f64 may be only aligned to 32 bits.

A type’s size must always be a multiple of its alignment. This ensures that an array of that type may always be indexed by offsetting by a multiple of its size. Note that the size and alignment of a type may not be known statically in the case of dynamically sized types.

Rust gives you the following ways to lay out composite data:

• structs (named product types)
• tuples (anonymous product types)
• arrays (homogeneous product types)
• enums (named sum types – tagged unions)

An enum is said to be C-like if none of its variants have associated data.

Composite structures will have an alignment equal to the maximum of their fields’ alignment. Rust will consequently insert padding where necessary to ensure that all fields are properly aligned and that the overall type’s size is a multiple of its alignment. For instance:

struct A {
      a: u8,
      b: u32,
      c: u16,
  }

will be 32-bit aligned on an architecture that aligns these primitives to their respective sizes. The whole struct will therefore have a size that is a multiple of 32-bits. It will potentially become:

struct A {
      a: u8,
      _pad1: [u8; 3], // to align `b`
      b: u32,
      c: u16,
      _pad2: [u8; 2], // to make overall size multiple of 4
  }

There is no indirection for these types; all data is stored within the struct, as you would expect in C. However with the exception of arrays (which are densely packed and in-order), the layout of data is not by default specified in Rust. Given the two following struct definitions:

struct A {
      a: i32,
      b: u64,
  }
  
  struct B {
      a: i32,
      b: u64,
  }

Rust does guarantee that two instances of A have their data laid out in exactly the same way. However Rust does not currently guarantee that an instance of A has the same field ordering or padding as an instance of B, though in practice there’s no reason why they wouldn’t.

With A and B as written, this point would seem to be pedantic, but several other features of Rust make it desirable for the language to play with data layout in complex ways.

For instance, consider this struct:

struct Foo<T, U> {
      count: u16,
      data1: T,
      data2: U,
  }

Now consider the monomorphizations of Foo<u32, u16> and Foo<u16, u32>. If Rust lays out the fields in the order specified, we expect it to pad the values in the struct to satisfy their alignment requirements. So if Rust didn’t reorder fields, we would expect it to produce the following:

struct Foo<u16, u32> {
      count: u16,
      data1: u16,
      data2: u32,
  }
  
  struct Foo<u32, u16> {
      count: u16,
      _pad1: u16,
      data1: u32,
      data2: u16,
      _pad2: u16,
  }

The latter case quite simply wastes space. An optimal use of space therefore requires different monomorphizations to have different field orderings.

Note: this is a hypothetical optimization that is not yet implemented in Rust 1.0

Enums make this consideration even more complicated. Naively, an enum such as:

enum Foo {
      A(u32),
      B(u64),
      C(u8),
  }

would be laid out as:

struct FooRepr {
      data: u64, // this is either a u64, u32, or u8 based on `tag`
      tag: u8,   // 0 = A, 1 = B, 2 = C
  }

And indeed this is approximately how it would be laid out in general (modulo the size and position of tag).

However there are several cases where such a representation is inefficient. The classic case of this is Rust’s “null pointer optimization”: an enum consisting of a single outer unit variant (e.g. None) and a (potentially nested) non- nullable pointer variant (e.g. &T) makes the tag unnecessary, because a null pointer value can safely be interpreted to mean that the unit variant is chosen instead. The net result is that, for example, size_of::<Option<&T>>() == size_of::<&T>().

There are many types in Rust that are, or contain, non-nullable pointers such as Box<T>, Vec<T>, String, &T, and &mut T. Similarly, one can imagine nested enums pooling their tags into a single discriminant, as they are by definition known to have a limited range of valid values. In principle enums could use fairly elaborate algorithms to cache bits throughout nested types with special constrained representations. As such it is especially desirable that we leave enum layout unspecified today.

Exotically Sized Types

Most of the time, we think in terms of types with a fixed, positive size. This is not always the case, however.

// Can't be stored on the stack directly
  struct Foo {
      info: u32,
      data: [u8],
  }

struct Foo; // No fields = no size
  
  // All fields have no size = no size
  struct Baz {
      foo: Foo,
      qux: (),      // empty tuple has no size
      baz: [u8; 0], // empty array has no size
  }

enum Void {} // No variants = EMPTY

enum Void {}
  
  let res: Result<u32, Void> = Ok(0);
  
  // Err doesn't exist anymore, so Ok is actually irrefutable.
  let Ok(num) = res;

Other reprs

Rust allows you to specify alternative data layout strategies from the default.

References

This section gives a high-level view of the memory model that all Rust programs must satisfy to be correct. Safe code is statically verified to obey this model by the borrow checker. Unsafe code may go above and beyond the borrow checker while still satisfying this model. The borrow checker may also be extended to allow more programs to compile, as long as this more fundamental model is satisfied.

There are two kinds of reference:

• Shared reference: &
• Mutable reference: &mut

Which obey the following rules:

• A reference cannot outlive its referent
• A mutable reference cannot be aliased

That’s it. That’s the whole model. Of course, we should probably define what aliased means. To define aliasing, we must define the notion of paths and liveness.

NOTE: The model that follows is generally agreed to be dubious and have issues. It’s ok-ish as an intuitive model, but fails to capture the desired semantics. We leave this here to be able to use notions introduced here in later sections. This will be significantly changed in the future. TODO: do that.

let x = &mut (1, 2);
  {
      // reborrow x to a subfield
      let y = &mut x.0;
      // y is now live, but x isn't
      *y = 3;
  }
  // y goes out of scope, so x is live again
  *x = (5, 7);

let x = &mut (1, 2);
  {
      // reborrow x to two disjoint subfields
      let y = &mut x.0;
      let z = &mut x.1;
  
      // y and z are now live, but x isn't
      *y = 3;
      *z = 4;
  }
  // y and z go out of scope, so x is live again
  *x = (5, 7);

Lifetimes

Rust enforces these rules through lifetimes. Lifetimes are effectively just names for scopes somewhere in the program. Each reference, and anything that contains a reference, is tagged with a lifetime specifying the scope it’s valid for.

Within a function body, Rust generally doesn’t let you explicitly name the lifetimes involved. This is because it’s generally not really necessary to talk about lifetimes in a local context; Rust has all the information and can work out everything as optimally as possible. Many anonymous scopes and temporaries that you would otherwise have to write are often introduced to make your code Just Work.

However once you cross the function boundary, you need to start talking about lifetimes. Lifetimes are denoted with an apostrophe: 'a, 'static. To dip our toes with lifetimes, we’re going to pretend that we’re actually allowed to label scopes with lifetimes, and desugar the examples from the start of this chapter.

Originally, our examples made use of aggressive sugar – high fructose corn syrup even – around scopes and lifetimes, because writing everything out explicitly is extremely noisy. All Rust code relies on aggressive inference and elision of “obvious” things.

One particularly interesting piece of sugar is that each let statement implicitly introduces a scope. For the most part, this doesn’t really matter. However it does matter for variables that refer to each other. As a simple example, let’s completely desugar this simple piece of Rust code:

let x = 0;
  let y = &x;
  let z = &y;

The borrow checker always tries to minimize the extent of a lifetime, so it will likely desugar to the following:

// NOTE: `'a: {` and `&'b x` is not valid syntax!
  'a: {
      let x: i32 = 0;
      'b: {
          // lifetime used is 'b because that's good enough.
          let y: &'b i32 = &'b x;
          'c: {
              // ditto on 'c
              let z: &'c &'b i32 = &'c y;
          }
      }
  }

Wow. That’s… awful. Let’s all take a moment to thank Rust for making this easier.

Actually passing references to outer scopes will cause Rust to infer a larger lifetime:

let x = 0;
  let z;
  let y = &x;
  z = y;

'a: {
      let x: i32 = 0;
      'b: {
          let z: &'b i32;
          'c: {
              // Must use 'b here because this reference is
              // being passed to that scope.
              let y: &'b i32 = &'b x;
              z = y;
          }
      }
  }

fn as_str(data: &u32) -> &str {
      let s = format!("{}", data);
      &s
  }

fn as_str<'a>(data: &'a u32) -> &'a str {
      'b: {
          let s = format!("{}", data);
          return &'a s;
      }
  }

fn as_str<'a>(data: &'a u32) -> &'a str {
      'b: {
          let s = format!("{}", data);
          return &'a s
      }
  }
  
  fn main() {
      'c: {
          let x: u32 = 0;
          'd: {
              // An anonymous scope is introduced because the borrow does not
              // need to last for the whole scope x is valid for. The return
              // of as_str must find a str somewhere before this function
              // call. Obviously not happening.
              println!("{}", as_str::<'d>(&'d x));
          }
      }
  }

fn to_string(data: &u32) -> String {
      format!("{}", data)
  }

let mut data = vec![1, 2, 3];
  let x = &data[0];
  data.push(4);
  println!("{}", x);

'a: {
      let mut data: Vec<i32> = vec![1, 2, 3];
      'b: {
          // 'b is as big as we need this borrow to be
          // (just need to get to `println!`)
          let x: &'b i32 = Index::index::<'b>(&'b data, 0);
          'c: {
              // Temporary scope because we don't need the
              // &mut to last any longer.
              Vec::push(&'c mut data, 4);
          }
          println!("{}", x);
      }
  }

Limits of Lifetimes

Given the following code:

struct Foo;
  
  impl Foo {
      fn mutate_and_share(&mut self) -> &Self { &*self }
      fn share(&self) {}
  }
  
  fn main() {
      let mut foo = Foo;
      let loan = foo.mutate_and_share();
      foo.share();
  }

One might expect it to compile. We call mutate_and_share, which mutably borrows foo temporarily, but then returns only a shared reference. Therefore we would expect foo.share() to succeed as foo shouldn’t be mutably borrowed.

However when we try to compile it:

<anon>:11:5: 11:8 error: cannot borrow `foo` as immutable because it is also borrowed 
  ↳ as mutable
  <anon>:11     foo.share();
                ^~~
  <anon>:10:16: 10:19 note: previous borrow of `foo` occurs here; the mutable borrow pre
  ↳ vents subsequent moves, borrows, or modification of `foo` until the borrow ends
  <anon>:10     let loan = foo.mutate_and_share();
                           ^~~
  <anon>:12:2: 12:2 note: previous borrow ends here
  <anon>:8 fn main() {
  <anon>:9     let mut foo = Foo;
  <anon>:10     let loan = foo.mutate_and_share();
  <anon>:11     foo.share();
  <anon>:12 }
            ^

What happened? Well, we got the exact same reasoning as we did for Example 2 in the previous section. We desugar the program and we get the following:

struct Foo;
  
  impl Foo {
      fn mutate_and_share<'a>(&'a mut self) -> &'a Self { &'a *self }
      fn share<'a>(&'a self) {}
  }
  
  fn main() {
      'b: {
          let mut foo: Foo = Foo;
          'c: {
              let loan: &'c Foo = Foo::mutate_and_share::<'c>(&'c mut foo);
              'd: {
                  Foo::share::<'d>(&'d foo);
              }
          }
      }
  }

The lifetime system is forced to extend the &mut foo to have lifetime 'c, due to the lifetime of loan and mutate_and_share’s signature. Then when we try to call share, and it sees we’re trying to alias that &'c mut foo and blows up in our face!

This program is clearly correct according to the reference semantics we actually care about, but the lifetime system is too coarse-grained to handle that.

TODO: other common problems? SEME regions stuff, mostly?

Lifetime Elision

In order to make common patterns more ergonomic, Rust allows lifetimes to be elided in function signatures.

A lifetime position is anywhere you can write a lifetime in a type:

&'a T
  &'a mut T
  T<'a>

Lifetime positions can appear as either “input” or “output”:

• For fn definitions, input refers to the types of the formal arguments in the fn definition, while output refers to result types. So fn foo(s: &str) -> (&str, &str) has elided one lifetime in input position and two lifetimes in output position. Note that the input positions of a fn method definition do not include the lifetimes that occur in the method’s impl header (nor lifetimes that occur in the trait header, for a default method).

• In the future, it should be possible to elide impl headers in the same manner.

Elision rules are as follows:

• Each elided lifetime in input position becomes a distinct lifetime parameter.

• If there is exactly one input lifetime position (elided or not), that lifetime is assigned to all elided output lifetimes.

• If there are multiple input lifetime positions, but one of them is &self or &mut self, the lifetime of self is assigned to all elided output lifetimes.

• Otherwise, it is an error to elide an output lifetime.

Examples:

fn print(s: &str);                                      // elided
  fn print<'a>(s: &'a str);                               // expanded
  
  fn debug(lvl: uint, s: &str);                           // elided
  fn debug<'a>(lvl: uint, s: &'a str);                    // expanded
  
  fn substr(s: &str, until: uint) -> &str;                // elided
  fn substr<'a>(s: &'a str, until: uint) -> &'a str;      // expanded
  
  fn get_str() -> &str;                                   // ILLEGAL
  
  fn frob(s: &str, t: &str) -> &str;                      // ILLEGAL
  
  fn get_mut(&mut self) -> &mut T;                        // elided
  fn get_mut<'a>(&'a mut self) -> &'a mut T;              // expanded
  
  fn args<T: ToCStr>(&mut self, args: &[T]) -> &mut Command                  // elided
  fn args<'a, 'b, T: ToCStr>(&'a mut self, args: &'b [T]) -> &'a mut Command // expanded
  
  fn new(buf: &mut [u8]) -> BufWriter;                    // elided
  fn new<'a>(buf: &'a mut [u8]) -> BufWriter<'a>          // expanded

Unbounded Lifetimes

Unsafe code can often end up producing references or lifetimes out of thin air. Such lifetimes come into the world as unbounded. The most common source of this is dereferencing a raw pointer, which produces a reference with an unbounded lifetime. Such a lifetime becomes as big as context demands. This is in fact more powerful than simply becoming 'static, because for instance &'static &'a T will fail to typecheck, but the unbound lifetime will perfectly mold into &'a &'a T as needed. However for most intents and purposes, such an unbounded lifetime can be regarded as 'static.

Almost no reference is 'static, so this is probably wrong. transmute and transmute_copy are the two other primary offenders. One should endeavor to bound an unbounded lifetime as quick as possible, especially across function boundaries.

Given a function, any output lifetimes that don’t derive from inputs are unbounded. For instance:

fn get_str<'a>() -> &'a str;

will produce an &str with an unbounded lifetime. The easiest way to avoid unbounded lifetimes is to use lifetime elision at the function boundary. If an output lifetime is elided, then it must be bounded by an input lifetime. Of course it might be bounded by the wrong lifetime, but this will usually just cause a compiler error, rather than allow memory safety to be trivially violated.

Within a function, bounding lifetimes is more error-prone. The safest and easiest way to bound a lifetime is to return it from a function with a bound lifetime. However if this is unacceptable, the reference can be placed in a location with a specific lifetime. Unfortunately it’s impossible to name all lifetimes involved in a function.

Higher-Rank Trait Bounds

Rust’s Fn traits are a little bit magic. For instance, we can write the following code:

struct Closure<F> {
      data: (u8, u16),
      func: F,
  }
  
  impl<F> Closure<F>
      where F: Fn(&(u8, u16)) -> &u8,
  {
      fn call(&self) -> &u8 {
          (self.func)(&self.data)
      }
  }
  
  fn do_it(data: &(u8, u16)) -> &u8 { &data.0 }
  
  fn main() {
      let clo = Closure { data: (0, 1), func: do_it };
      println!("{}", clo.call());
  }

If we try to naively desugar this code in the same way that we did in the lifetimes section, we run into some trouble:

struct Closure<F> {
      data: (u8, u16),
      func: F,
  }
  
  impl<F> Closure<F>
      // where F: Fn(&'??? (u8, u16)) -> &'??? u8,
  {
      fn call<'a>(&'a self) -> &'a u8 {
          (self.func)(&self.data)
      }
  }
  
  fn do_it<'b>(data: &'b (u8, u16)) -> &'b u8 { &'b data.0 }
  
  fn main() {
      'x: {
          let clo = Closure { data: (0, 1), func: do_it };
          println!("{}", clo.call());
      }
  }

How on earth are we supposed to express the lifetimes on F’s trait bound? We need to provide some lifetime there, but the lifetime we care about can’t be named until we enter the body of call! Also, that isn’t some fixed lifetime; call works with any lifetime &self happens to have at that point.

This job requires The Magic of Higher-Rank Trait Bounds (HRTBs). The way we desugar this is as follows:

where for<'a> F: Fn(&'a (u8, u16)) -> &'a u8,

(Where Fn(a, b, c) -> d is itself just sugar for the unstable real Fn trait)

for<'a> can be read as “for all choices of 'a”, and basically produces an infinite list of trait bounds that F must satisfy. Intense. There aren’t many places outside of the Fn traits where we encounter HRTBs, and even for those we have a nice magic sugar for the common cases.

Subtyping and Variance

Although Rust doesn’t have any notion of structural inheritance, it does include subtyping. In Rust, subtyping derives entirely from lifetimes. Since lifetimes are scopes, we can partially order them based on the contains (outlives) relationship. We can even express this as a generic bound.

Subtyping on lifetimes is in terms of that relationship: if 'a: 'b (“a contains b” or “a outlives b”), then 'a is a subtype of 'b. This is a large source of confusion, because it seems intuitively backwards to many: the bigger scope is a subtype of the smaller scope.

This does in fact make sense, though. The intuitive reason for this is that if you expect an &'a u8, then it’s totally fine for me to hand you an &'static u8, in the same way that if you expect an Animal in Java, it’s totally fine for me to hand you a Cat. Cats are just Animals and more, just as 'static is just 'a and more.

(Note, the subtyping relationship and typed-ness of lifetimes is a fairly arbitrary construct that some disagree with. However it simplifies our analysis to treat lifetimes and types uniformly.)

Higher-ranked lifetimes are also subtypes of every concrete lifetime. This is because taking an arbitrary lifetime is strictly more general than taking a specific one.

fn overwrite<T: Copy>(input: &mut T, new: &mut T) {
      *input = *new;
  }
  
  fn main() {
      let mut forever_str: &'static str = "hello";
      {
          let string = String::from("world");
          overwrite(&mut forever_str, &mut &*string);
      }
      // Oops, printing free'd memory
      println!("{}", forever_str);
  }

fn get_box<'a>(str: &'a str) -> Box<&'a str> {
      // string literals are `&'static str`s
      Box::new("hello")
  }

// 'a is derived from some parent scope
  fn foo(&'a str) -> usize;

fn foo(&'static str) -> usize;

// 'a is derived from some parent scope
  fn foo(usize) -> &'a str;

fn foo(usize) -> &'static str;

use std::cell::Cell;
  
  struct Foo<'a, 'b, A: 'a, B: 'b, C, D, E, F, G, H> {
      a: &'a A,     // variant over 'a and A
      b: &'b mut B, // variant over 'b and invariant over B
      c: *const C,  // variant over C
      d: *mut D,    // invariant over D
      e: Vec<E>,    // variant over E
      f: Cell<F>,   // invariant over F
      g: G,         // variant over G
      h1: H,        // would also be variant over H except...
      h2: Cell<H>,  // invariant over H, because invariance wins
  }

Drop Check

We have seen how lifetimes provide us some fairly simple rules for ensuring that we never read dangling references. However up to this point we have only ever interacted with the outlives relationship in an inclusive manner. That is, when we talked about 'a: 'b, it was ok for 'a to live exactly as long as 'b. At first glance, this seems to be a meaningless distinction. Nothing ever gets dropped at the same time as another, right? This is why we used the following desugaring of let statements:

let x;
  let y;

{
      let x;
      {
          let y;
      }
  }

Each creates its own scope, clearly establishing that one drops before the other. However, what if we do the following?

let (x, y) = (vec![], vec![]);

Does either value strictly outlive the other? The answer is in fact no, neither value strictly outlives the other. Of course, one of x or y will be dropped before the other, but the actual order is not specified. Tuples aren’t special in this regard; composite structures just don’t guarantee their destruction order as of Rust 1.0.

We could specify this for the fields of built-in composites like tuples and structs. However, what about something like Vec? Vec has to manually drop its elements via pure-library code. In general, anything that implements Drop has a chance to fiddle with its innards during its final death knell. Therefore the compiler can’t sufficiently reason about the actual destruction order of the contents of any type that implements Drop.

So why do we care? We care because if the type system isn’t careful, it could accidentally make dangling pointers. Consider the following simple program:

struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8);
  
  fn main() {
      let (inspector, days);
      days = Box::new(1);
      inspector = Inspector(&days);
  }

This program is totally sound and compiles today. The fact that days does not strictly outlive inspector doesn’t matter. As long as the inspector is alive, so is days.

However if we add a destructor, the program will no longer compile!

struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8);
  
  impl<'a> Drop for Inspector<'a> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          println!("I was only {} days from retirement!", self.0);
      }
  }
  
  fn main() {
      let (inspector, days);
      days = Box::new(1);
      inspector = Inspector(&days);
      // Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first.
      // Then when Inspector is dropped, it will try to read free'd memory!
  }

<anon>:12:28: 12:32 error: `days` does not live long enough
  <anon>:12     inspector = Inspector(&days);
                                       ^~~~
  <anon>:9:11: 15:2 note: reference must be valid for the block at 9:10...
  <anon>:9 fn main() {
  <anon>:10     let (inspector, days);
  <anon>:11     days = Box::new(1);
  <anon>:12     inspector = Inspector(&days);
  <anon>:13     // Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first.
  <anon>:14     // Then when Inspector is dropped, it will try to read free'd memory!
            ...
  <anon>:10:27: 15:2 note: ...but borrowed value is only valid for the block suffix foll
  ↳ owing statement 0 at 10:26
  <anon>:10     let (inspector, days);
  <anon>:11     days = Box::new(1);
  <anon>:12     inspector = Inspector(&days);
  <anon>:13     // Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first.
  <anon>:14     // Then when Inspector is dropped, it will try to read free'd memory!
  <anon>:15 }

Implementing Drop lets the Inspector execute some arbitrary code during its death. This means it can potentially observe that types that are supposed to live as long as it does actually were destroyed first.

Interestingly, only generic types need to worry about this. If they aren’t generic, then the only lifetimes they can harbor are 'static, which will truly live forever. This is why this problem is referred to as sound generic drop. Sound generic drop is enforced by the drop checker. As of this writing, some of the finer details of how the drop checker validates types is totally up in the air. However The Big Rule is the subtlety that we have focused on this whole section:

For a generic type to soundly implement drop, its generics arguments must strictly outlive it.

Obeying this rule is (usually) necessary to satisfy the borrow checker; obeying it is sufficient but not necessary to be sound. That is, if your type obeys this rule then it’s definitely sound to drop.

The reason that it is not always necessary to satisfy the above rule is that some Drop implementations will not access borrowed data even though their type gives them the capability for such access.

For example, this variant of the above Inspector example will never accessed borrowed data:

struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8, &'static str);
  
  impl<'a> Drop for Inspector<'a> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1);
      }
  }
  
  fn main() {
      let (inspector, days);
      days = Box::new(1);
      inspector = Inspector(&days, "gadget");
      // Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first.
      // Even when Inspector is dropped, its destructor will not access the
      // borrowed `days`.
  }

Likewise, this variant will also never access borrowed data:

use std::fmt;
  
  struct Inspector<T: fmt::Display>(T, &'static str);
  
  impl<T: fmt::Display> Drop for Inspector<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1);
      }
  }
  
  fn main() {
      let (inspector, days): (Inspector<&u8>, Box<u8>);
      days = Box::new(1);
      inspector = Inspector(&days, "gadget");
      // Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first.
      // Even when Inspector is dropped, its destructor will not access the
      // borrowed `days`.
  }

However, both of the above variants are rejected by the borrow checker during the analysis of fn main, saying that days does not live long enough.

The reason is that the borrow checking analysis of main does not know about the internals of each Inspector’s Drop implementation. As far as the borrow checker knows while it is analyzing main, the body of an inspector’s destructor might access that borrowed data.

Therefore, the drop checker forces all borrowed data in a value to strictly outlive that value.

struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8, &'static str);
  
  impl<'a> Drop for Inspector<'a> {
      #[unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params]
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1);
      }
  }

struct Inspector<T>(T, &'static str, Box<for <'r> fn(&'r T) -> String>);
  
  impl<T> Drop for Inspector<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          // The `self.2` call could access a borrow e.g. if `T` is `&'a _`.
          println!("Inspector({}, {}) unwittingly inspects expired data.",
                   (self.2)(&self.0), self.1);
      }
  }

use std::fmt;
  
  struct Inspector<T: fmt::Display>(T, &'static str);
  
  impl<T: fmt::Display> Drop for Inspector<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          // There is a hidden call to `<T as Display>::fmt` below, which
          // could access a borrow e.g. if `T` is `&'a _`
          println!("Inspector({}, {}) unwittingly inspects expired data.",
                   self.0, self.1);
      }
  }

PhantomData

When working with unsafe code, we can often end up in a situation where types or lifetimes are logically associated with a struct, but not actually part of a field. This most commonly occurs with lifetimes. For instance, the Iter for &'a [T] is (approximately) defined as follows:

struct Iter<'a, T: 'a> {
      ptr: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }

However because 'a is unused within the struct’s body, it’s unbounded. Because of the troubles this has historically caused, unbounded lifetimes and types are forbidden in struct definitions. Therefore we must somehow refer to these types in the body. Correctly doing this is necessary to have correct variance and drop checking.

We do this using PhantomData, which is a special marker type. PhantomData consumes no space, but simulates a field of the given type for the purpose of static analysis. This was deemed to be less error-prone than explicitly telling the type-system the kind of variance that you want, while also providing other useful such as the information needed by drop check.

Iter logically contains a bunch of &'a Ts, so this is exactly what we tell the PhantomData to simulate:

use std::marker;
  
  struct Iter<'a, T: 'a> {
      ptr: *const T,
      end: *const T,
      _marker: marker::PhantomData<&'a T>,
  }

and that’s it. The lifetime will be bounded, and your iterator will be variant over 'a and T. Everything Just Works.

Another important example is Vec, which is (approximately) defined as follows:

struct Vec<T> {
      data: *const T, // *const for variance!
      len: usize,
      cap: usize,
  }

Unlike the previous example it appears that everything is exactly as we want. Every generic argument to Vec shows up in the at least one field. Good to go!

Nope.

The drop checker will generously determine that Vec does not own any values of type T. This will in turn make it conclude that it doesn’t need to worry about Vec dropping any T’s in its destructor for determining drop check soundness. This will in turn allow people to create unsoundness using Vec’s destructor.

In order to tell dropck that we do own values of type T, and therefore may drop some T’s when we drop, we must add an extra PhantomData saying exactly that:

use std::marker;
  
  struct Vec<T> {
      data: *const T, // *const for covariance!
      len: usize,
      cap: usize,
      _marker: marker::PhantomData<T>,
  }

Raw pointers that own an allocation is such a pervasive pattern that the standard library made a utility for itself called Unique<T> which:

• wraps a *const T for variance
• includes a PhantomData<T>,
• auto-derives Send/Sync as if T was contained
• marks the pointer as NonZero for the null-pointer optimization

Splitting Borrows

The mutual exclusion property of mutable references can be very limiting when working with a composite structure. The borrow checker understands some basic stuff, but will fall over pretty easily. It does understand structs sufficiently to know that it’s possible to borrow disjoint fields of a struct simultaneously. So this works today:

struct Foo {
      a: i32,
      b: i32,
      c: i32,
  }
  
  let mut x = Foo {a: 0, b: 0, c: 0};
  let a = &mut x.a;
  let b = &mut x.b;
  let c = &x.c;
  *b += 1;
  let c2 = &x.c;
  *a += 10;
  println!("{} {} {} {}", a, b, c, c2);

However borrowck doesn’t understand arrays or slices in any way, so this doesn’t work:

let mut x = [1, 2, 3];
  let a = &mut x[0];
  let b = &mut x[1];
  println!("{} {}", a, b);

<anon>:4:14: 4:18 error: cannot borrow `x[..]` as mutable more than once at a time
  <anon>:4 let b = &mut x[1];
                        ^~~~
  <anon>:3:14: 3:18 note: previous borrow of `x[..]` occurs here; the mutable borrow pre
  ↳ vents subsequent moves, borrows, or modification of `x[..]` until the borrow ends
  <anon>:3 let a = &mut x[0];
                        ^~~~
  <anon>:6:2: 6:2 note: previous borrow ends here
  <anon>:1 fn main() {
  <anon>:2 let mut x = [1, 2, 3];
  <anon>:3 let a = &mut x[0];
  <anon>:4 let b = &mut x[1];
  <anon>:5 println!("{} {}", a, b);
  <anon>:6 }
           ^
  error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

While it was plausible that borrowck could understand this simple case, it’s pretty clearly hopeless for borrowck to understand disjointness in general container types like a tree, especially if distinct keys actually do map to the same value.

In order to “teach” borrowck that what we’re doing is ok, we need to drop down to unsafe code. For instance, mutable slices expose a split_at_mut function that consumes the slice and returns two mutable slices. One for everything to the left of the index, and one for everything to the right. Intuitively we know this is safe because the slices don’t overlap, and therefore alias. However the implementation requires some unsafety:

fn split_at_mut(&mut self, mid: usize) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T]) {
      let len = self.len();
      let ptr = self.as_mut_ptr();
      assert!(mid <= len);
      unsafe {
          (from_raw_parts_mut(ptr, mid),
           from_raw_parts_mut(ptr.offset(mid as isize), len - mid))
      }
  }

This is actually a bit subtle. So as to avoid ever making two &mut’s to the same value, we explicitly construct brand-new slices through raw pointers.

However more subtle is how iterators that yield mutable references work. The iterator trait is defined as follows:

trait Iterator {
      type Item;
  
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item>;
  }

Given this definition, Self::Item has no connection to self. This means that we can call next several times in a row, and hold onto all the results concurrently. This is perfectly fine for by-value iterators, which have exactly these semantics. It’s also actually fine for shared references, as they admit arbitrarily many references to the same thing (although the iterator needs to be a separate object from the thing being shared).

But mutable references make this a mess. At first glance, they might seem completely incompatible with this API, as it would produce multiple mutable references to the same object!

However it actually does work, exactly because iterators are one-shot objects. Everything an IterMut yields will be yielded at most once, so we don’t actually ever yield multiple mutable references to the same piece of data.

Perhaps surprisingly, mutable iterators don’t require unsafe code to be implemented for many types!

For instance here’s a singly linked list:

type Link<T> = Option<Box<Node<T>>>;
  
  struct Node<T> {
      elem: T,
      next: Link<T>,
  }
  
  pub struct LinkedList<T> {
      head: Link<T>,
  }
  
  pub struct IterMut<'a, T: 'a>(Option<&'a mut Node<T>>);
  
  impl<T> LinkedList<T> {
      fn iter_mut(&mut self) -> IterMut<T> {
          IterMut(self.head.as_mut().map(|node| &mut **node))
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
      type Item = &'a mut T;
  
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          self.0.take().map(|node| {
              self.0 = node.next.as_mut().map(|node| &mut **node);
              &mut node.elem
          })
      }
  }

Here’s a mutable slice:

use std::mem;
  
  pub struct IterMut<'a, T: 'a>(&'a mut[T]);
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
      type Item = &'a mut T;
  
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          let slice = mem::replace(&mut self.0, &mut []);
          if slice.is_empty() { return None; }
  
          let (l, r) = slice.split_at_mut(1);
          self.0 = r;
          l.get_mut(0)
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          let slice = mem::replace(&mut self.0, &mut []);
          if slice.is_empty() { return None; }
  
          let new_len = slice.len() - 1;
          let (l, r) = slice.split_at_mut(new_len);
          self.0 = l;
          r.get_mut(0)
      }
  }

And here’s a binary tree:

use std::collections::VecDeque;
  
  type Link<T> = Option<Box<Node<T>>>;
  
  struct Node<T> {
      elem: T,
      left: Link<T>,
      right: Link<T>,
  }
  
  pub struct Tree<T> {
      root: Link<T>,
  }
  
  struct NodeIterMut<'a, T: 'a> {
      elem: Option<&'a mut T>,
      left: Option<&'a mut Node<T>>,
      right: Option<&'a mut Node<T>>,
  }
  
  enum State<'a, T: 'a> {
      Elem(&'a mut T),
      Node(&'a mut Node<T>),
  }
  
  pub struct IterMut<'a, T: 'a>(VecDeque<NodeIterMut<'a, T>>);
  
  impl<T> Tree<T> {
      pub fn iter_mut(&mut self) -> IterMut<T> {
          let mut deque = VecDeque::new();
          self.root.as_mut().map(|root| deque.push_front(root.iter_mut()));
          IterMut(deque)
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Node<T> {
      pub fn iter_mut(&mut self) -> NodeIterMut<T> {
          NodeIterMut {
              elem: Some(&mut self.elem),
              left: self.left.as_mut().map(|node| &mut **node),
              right: self.right.as_mut().map(|node| &mut **node),
          }
      }
  }
  
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for NodeIterMut<'a, T> {
      type Item = State<'a, T>;
  
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          match self.left.take() {
              Some(node) => Some(State::Node(node)),
              None => match self.elem.take() {
                  Some(elem) => Some(State::Elem(elem)),
                  None => match self.right.take() {
                      Some(node) => Some(State::Node(node)),
                      None => None,
                  }
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for NodeIterMut<'a, T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          match self.right.take() {
              Some(node) => Some(State::Node(node)),
              None => match self.elem.take() {
                  Some(elem) => Some(State::Elem(elem)),
                  None => match self.left.take() {
                      Some(node) => Some(State::Node(node)),
                      None => None,
                  }
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
      type Item = &'a mut T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          loop {
              match self.0.front_mut().and_then(|node_it| node_it.next()) {
                  Some(State::Elem(elem)) => return Some(elem),
                  Some(State::Node(node)) => self.0.push_front(node.iter_mut()),
                  None => if let None = self.0.pop_front() { return None },
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
          loop {
              match self.0.back_mut().and_then(|node_it| node_it.next_back()) {
                  Some(State::Elem(elem)) => return Some(elem),
                  Some(State::Node(node)) => self.0.push_back(node.iter_mut()),
                  None => if let None = self.0.pop_back() { return None },
              }
          }
      }
  }

All of these are completely safe and work on stable Rust! This ultimately falls out of the simple struct case we saw before: Rust understands that you can safely split a mutable reference into subfields. We can then encode permanently consuming a reference via Options (or in the case of slices, replacing with an empty slice).

Coercions

Types can implicitly be coerced to change in certain contexts. These changes are generally just weakening of types, largely focused around pointers and lifetimes. They mostly exist to make Rust “just work” in more cases, and are largely harmless.

Here’s all the kinds of coercion:

Coercion is allowed between the following types:

• Transitivity: T_1 to T_3 where T_1 coerces to T_2 and T_2 coerces to T_3
• Pointer Weakening:
  • &mut T to &T
  • *mut T to *const T
  • &T to *const T
  • &mut T to *mut T
• Unsizing: T to U if T implements CoerceUnsized<U>

CoerceUnsized<Pointer<U>> for Pointer<T> where T: Unsize<U> is implemented for all pointer types (including smart pointers like Box and Rc). Unsize is only implemented automatically, and enables the following transformations:

• [T; n] => [T]
• T => Trait where T: Trait
• Foo<..., T, ...> => Foo<..., U, ...> where:
  • T: Unsize<U>
  • Foo is a struct
  • Only the last field of Foo has type T
  • T is not part of the type of any other fields

Coercions occur at a coercion site. Any location that is explicitly typed will cause a coercion to its type. If inference is necessary, the coercion will not be performed. Exhaustively, the coercion sites for an expression e to type U are:

• let statements, statics, and consts: let x: U = e
• Arguments to functions: takes_a_U(e)
• Any expression that will be returned: fn foo() -> U { e }
• Struct literals: Foo { some_u: e }
• Array literals: let x: [U; 10] = [e, ..]
• Tuple literals: let x: (U, ..) = (e, ..)
• The last expression in a block: let x: U = { ..; e }

Note that we do not perform coercions when matching traits (except for receivers, see below). If there is an impl for some type U and T coerces to U, that does not constitute an implementation for T. For example, the following will not type check, even though it is OK to coerce t to &T and there is an impl for &T:

trait Trait {}
  
  fn foo<X: Trait>(t: X) {}
  
  impl<'a> Trait for &'a i32 {}
  
  
  fn main() {
      let t: &mut i32 = &mut 0;
      foo(t);
  }

<anon>:10:5: 10:8 error: the trait bound `&mut i32 : Trait` is not satisfied [E0277]
  <anon>:10     foo(t);
                ^~~

The Dot Operator

The dot operator will perform a lot of magic to convert types. It will perform auto-referencing, auto-dereferencing, and coercion until types match.

TODO: steal information from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28519997/what-are-rusts-exact-auto-dereferencing-rules/28552082#28552082

Casts

Casts are a superset of coercions: every coercion can be explicitly invoked via a cast. However some conversions require a cast. While coercions are pervasive and largely harmless, these “true casts” are rare and potentially dangerous. As such, casts must be explicitly invoked using the as keyword: expr as Type.

True casts generally revolve around raw pointers and the primitive numeric types. Even though they’re dangerous, these casts are infallible at runtime. If a cast triggers some subtle corner case no indication will be given that this occurred. The cast will simply succeed. That said, casts must be valid at the type level, or else they will be prevented statically. For instance, 7u8 as bool will not compile.

That said, casts aren’t unsafe because they generally can’t violate memory safety on their own. For instance, converting an integer to a raw pointer can very easily lead to terrible things. However the act of creating the pointer itself is safe, because actually using a raw pointer is already marked as unsafe.

Here’s an exhaustive list of all the true casts. For brevity, we will use * to denote either a *const or *mut, and integer to denote any integral primitive:

• *T as *U where T, U: Sized
• *T as *U TODO: explain unsized situation
• *T as integer
• integer as *T
• number as number
• C-like-enum as integer
• bool as integer
• char as integer
• u8 as char
• &[T; n] as *const T
• fn as *T where T: Sized
• fn as integer

Note that lengths are not adjusted when casting raw slices - *const [u16] as *const [u8] creates a slice that only includes half of the original memory.

Casting is not transitive, that is, even if e as U1 as U2 is a valid expression, e as U2 is not necessarily so.

For numeric casts, there are quite a few cases to consider:

• casting between two integers of the same size (e.g. i32 -> u32) is a no-op
• casting from a larger integer to a smaller integer (e.g. u32 -> u8) will truncate
• casting from a smaller integer to a larger integer (e.g. u8 -> u32) will
  • zero-extend if the source is unsigned
  • sign-extend if the source is signed
• casting from a float to an integer will round the float towards zero
  • NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behavior if the rounded value cannot be represented by the target integer type. This includes Inf and NaN. This is a bug and will be fixed.
• casting from an integer to float will produce the floating point representation of the integer, rounded if necessary (rounding strategy unspecified)
• casting from an f32 to an f64 is perfect and lossless
• casting from an f64 to an f32 will produce the closest possible value (rounding strategy unspecified)
  • NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behavior if the value is finite but larger or smaller than the largest or smallest finite value representable by f32. This is a bug and will be fixed.

Transmutes

Get out of our way type system! We’re going to reinterpret these bits or die trying! Even though this book is all about doing things that are unsafe, I really can’t emphasize that you should deeply think about finding Another Way than the operations covered in this section. This is really, truly, the most horribly unsafe thing you can do in Rust. The railguards here are dental floss.

mem::transmute<T, U> takes a value of type T and reinterprets it to have type U. The only restriction is that the T and U are verified to have the same size. The ways to cause Undefined Behavior with this are mind boggling.

• First and foremost, creating an instance of any type with an invalid state is going to cause arbitrary chaos that can’t really be predicted.
• Transmute has an overloaded return type. If you do not specify the return type it may produce a surprising type to satisfy inference.
• Making a primitive with an invalid value is UB
• Transmuting between non-repr(C) types is UB
• Transmuting an & to &mut is UB
  • Transmuting an & to &mut is always UB
  • No you can’t do it
  • No you’re not special
• Transmuting to a reference without an explicitly provided lifetime produces an [unbounded lifetime]

mem::transmute_copy<T, U> somehow manages to be even more wildly unsafe than this. It copies size_of<U> bytes out of an &T and interprets them as a U. The size check that mem::transmute has is gone (as it may be valid to copy out a prefix), though it is Undefined Behavior for U to be larger than T.

Also of course you can get most of the functionality of these functions using pointer casts.

Checked

Like C, all stack variables in Rust are uninitialized until a value is explicitly assigned to them. Unlike C, Rust statically prevents you from ever reading them until you do:

fn main() {
      let x: i32;
      println!("{}", x);
  }

src/main.rs:3:20: 3:21 error: use of possibly uninitialized variable: `x`
  src/main.rs:3     println!("{}", x);
                                   ^

This is based off of a basic branch analysis: every branch must assign a value to x before it is first used. Interestingly, Rust doesn’t require the variable to be mutable to perform a delayed initialization if every branch assigns exactly once. However the analysis does not take advantage of constant analysis or anything like that. So this compiles:

fn main() {
      let x: i32;
  
      if true {
          x = 1;
      } else {
          x = 2;
      }
  
      println!("{}", x);
  }

but this doesn’t:

fn main() {
      let x: i32;
      if true {
          x = 1;
      }
      println!("{}", x);
  }

src/main.rs:6:17: 6:18 error: use of possibly uninitialized variable: `x`
  src/main.rs:6   println!("{}", x);

while this does:

fn main() {
      let x: i32;
      if true {
          x = 1;
          println!("{}", x);
      }
      // Don't care that there are branches where it's not initialized
      // since we don't use the value in those branches
  }

Of course, while the analysis doesn’t consider actual values, it does have a relatively sophisticated understanding of dependencies and control flow. For instance, this works:

let x: i32;
  
  loop {
      // Rust doesn't understand that this branch will be taken unconditionally,
      // because it relies on actual values.
      if true {
          // But it does understand that it will only be taken once because
          // we unconditionally break out of it. Therefore `x` doesn't
          // need to be marked as mutable.
          x = 0;
          break;
      }
  }
  // It also knows that it's impossible to get here without reaching the break.
  // And therefore that `x` must be initialized here!
  println!("{}", x);

If a value is moved out of a variable, that variable becomes logically uninitialized if the type of the value isn’t Copy. That is:

fn main() {
      let x = 0;
      let y = Box::new(0);
      let z1 = x; // x is still valid because i32 is Copy
      let z2 = y; // y is now logically uninitialized because Box isn't Copy
  }

However reassigning y in this example would require y to be marked as mutable, as a Safe Rust program could observe that the value of y changed:

fn main() {
      let mut y = Box::new(0);
      let z = y; // y is now logically uninitialized because Box isn't Copy
      y = Box::new(1); // reinitialize y
  }

Otherwise it’s like y is a brand new variable.

Drop Flags

The examples in the previous section introduce an interesting problem for Rust. We have seen that it’s possible to conditionally initialize, deinitialize, and reinitialize locations of memory totally safely. For Copy types, this isn’t particularly notable since they’re just a random pile of bits. However types with destructors are a different story: Rust needs to know whether to call a destructor whenever a variable is assigned to, or a variable goes out of scope. How can it do this with conditional initialization?

Note that this is not a problem that all assignments need worry about. In particular, assigning through a dereference unconditionally drops, and assigning in a let unconditionally doesn’t drop:

let mut x = Box::new(0); // let makes a fresh variable, so never need to drop
  let y = &mut x;
  *y = Box::new(1); // Deref assumes the referent is initialized, so always drops

This is only a problem when overwriting a previously initialized variable or one of its subfields.

It turns out that Rust actually tracks whether a type should be dropped or not at runtime. As a variable becomes initialized and uninitialized, a drop flag for that variable is toggled. When a variable might need to be dropped, this flag is evaluated to determine if it should be dropped.

Of course, it is often the case that a value’s initialization state can be statically known at every point in the program. If this is the case, then the compiler can theoretically generate more efficient code! For instance, straight- line code has such static drop semantics:

let mut x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
  let mut y = x;           // y was uninit; just overwrite and make x uninit.
  x = Box::new(0);         // x was uninit; just overwrite.
  y = x;                   // y was init; Drop y, overwrite it, and make x uninit!
                           // y goes out of scope; y was init; Drop y!
                           // x goes out of scope; x was uninit; do nothing.

Similarly, branched code where all branches have the same behavior with respect to initialization has static drop semantics:

let mut x = Box::new(0);    // x was uninit; just overwrite.
  if condition {
      drop(x)                 // x gets moved out; make x uninit.
  } else {
      println!("{}", x);
      drop(x)                 // x gets moved out; make x uninit.
  }
  x = Box::new(0);            // x was uninit; just overwrite.
                              // x goes out of scope; x was init; Drop x!

However code like this requires runtime information to correctly Drop:

let x;
  if condition {
      x = Box::new(0);        // x was uninit; just overwrite.
      println!("{}", x);
  }
                              // x goes out of scope; x might be uninit;
                              // check the flag!

Of course, in this case it’s trivial to retrieve static drop semantics:

if condition {
      let x = Box::new(0);
      println!("{}", x);
  }

As of Rust 1.0, the drop flags are actually not-so-secretly stashed in a hidden field of any type that implements Drop. Rust sets the drop flag by overwriting the entire value with a particular bit pattern. This is pretty obviously Not The Fastest and causes a bunch of trouble with optimizing code. It’s legacy from a time when you could do much more complex conditional initialization.

As such work is currently under way to move the flags out onto the stack frame where they more reasonably belong. Unfortunately, this work will take some time as it requires fairly substantial changes to the compiler.

Regardless, Rust programs don’t need to worry about uninitialized values on the stack for correctness. Although they might care for performance. Thankfully, Rust makes it easy to take control here! Uninitialized values are there, and you can work with them in Safe Rust, but you’re never in danger.

Unchecked

One interesting exception to this rule is working with arrays. Safe Rust doesn’t permit you to partially initialize an array. When you initialize an array, you can either set every value to the same thing with let x = [val; N], or you can specify each member individually with let x = [val1, val2, val3]. Unfortunately this is pretty rigid, especially if you need to initialize your array in a more incremental or dynamic way.

Unsafe Rust gives us a powerful tool to handle this problem: mem::uninitialized. This function pretends to return a value when really it does nothing at all. Using it, we can convince Rust that we have initialized a variable, allowing us to do trickier things with conditional and incremental initialization.

Unfortunately, this opens us up to all kinds of problems. Assignment has a different meaning to Rust based on whether it believes that a variable is initialized or not. If it’s believed uninitialized, then Rust will semantically just memcopy the bits over the uninitialized ones, and do nothing else. However if Rust believes a value to be initialized, it will try to Drop the old value! Since we’ve tricked Rust into believing that the value is initialized, we can no longer safely use normal assignment.

This is also a problem if you’re working with a raw system allocator, which returns a pointer to uninitialized memory.

To handle this, we must use the ptr module. In particular, it provides three functions that allow us to assign bytes to a location in memory without dropping the old value: write, copy, and copy_nonoverlapping.

• ptr::write(ptr, val) takes a val and moves it into the address pointed to by ptr.
• ptr::copy(src, dest, count) copies the bits that count T’s would occupy from src to dest. (this is equivalent to memmove – note that the argument order is reversed!)
• ptr::copy_nonoverlapping(src, dest, count) does what copy does, but a little faster on the assumption that the two ranges of memory don’t overlap. (this is equivalent to memcpy – note that the argument order is reversed!)

It should go without saying that these functions, if misused, will cause serious havoc or just straight up Undefined Behavior. The only things that these functions themselves require is that the locations you want to read and write are allocated. However the ways writing arbitrary bits to arbitrary locations of memory can break things are basically uncountable!

Putting this all together, we get the following:

use std::mem;
  use std::ptr;
  
  // size of the array is hard-coded but easy to change. This means we can't
  // use [a, b, c] syntax to initialize the array, though!
  const SIZE: usize = 10;
  
  let mut x: [Box<u32>; SIZE];
  
  unsafe {
      // convince Rust that x is Totally Initialized
      x = mem::uninitialized();
      for i in 0..SIZE {
          // very carefully overwrite each index without reading it
          // NOTE: exception safety is not a concern; Box can't panic
          ptr::write(&mut x[i], Box::new(i as u32));
      }
  }
  
  println!("{:?}", x);

It’s worth noting that you don’t need to worry about ptr::write-style shenanigans with types which don’t implement Drop or contain Drop types, because Rust knows not to try to drop them. Similarly you should be able to assign to fields of partially initialized structs directly if those fields don’t contain any Drop types.

However when working with uninitialized memory you need to be ever-vigilant for Rust trying to drop values you make like this before they’re fully initialized. Every control path through that variable’s scope must initialize the value before it ends, if it has a destructor. This includes code panicking.

And that’s about it for working with uninitialized memory! Basically nothing anywhere expects to be handed uninitialized memory, so if you’re going to pass it around at all, be sure to be really careful.

Constructors

There is exactly one way to create an instance of a user-defined type: name it, and initialize all its fields at once:

struct Foo {
      a: u8,
      b: u32,
      c: bool,
  }
  
  enum Bar {
      X(u32),
      Y(bool),
  }
  
  struct Unit;
  
  let foo = Foo { a: 0, b: 1, c: false };
  let bar = Bar::X(0);
  let empty = Unit;

That’s it. Every other way you make an instance of a type is just calling a totally vanilla function that does some stuff and eventually bottoms out to The One True Constructor.

Unlike C++, Rust does not come with a slew of built-in kinds of constructor. There are no Copy, Default, Assignment, Move, or whatever constructors. The reasons for this are varied, but it largely boils down to Rust’s philosophy of being explicit.

Move constructors are meaningless in Rust because we don’t enable types to “care” about their location in memory. Every type must be ready for it to be blindly memcopied to somewhere else in memory. This means pure on-the-stack-but- still-movable intrusive linked lists are simply not happening in Rust (safely).

Assignment and copy constructors similarly don’t exist because move semantics are the only semantics in Rust. At most x = y just moves the bits of y into the x variable. Rust does provide two facilities for providing C++’s copy- oriented semantics: Copy and Clone. Clone is our moral equivalent of a copy constructor, but it’s never implicitly invoked. You have to explicitly call clone on an element you want to be cloned. Copy is a special case of Clone where the implementation is just “copy the bits”. Copy types are implicitly cloned whenever they’re moved, but because of the definition of Copy this just means not treating the old copy as uninitialized – a no-op.

While Rust provides a Default trait for specifying the moral equivalent of a default constructor, it’s incredibly rare for this trait to be used. This is because variables aren’t implicitly initialized. Default is basically only useful for generic programming. In concrete contexts, a type will provide a static new method for any kind of “default” constructor. This has no relation to new in other languages and has no special meaning. It’s just a naming convention.

TODO: talk about “placement new”?

Destructors

What the language does provide is full-blown automatic destructors through the Drop trait, which provides the following method:

fn drop(&mut self);

This method gives the type time to somehow finish what it was doing.

After drop is run, Rust will recursively try to drop all of the fields of self.

This is a convenience feature so that you don’t have to write “destructor boilerplate” to drop children. If a struct has no special logic for being dropped other than dropping its children, then it means Drop doesn’t need to be implemented at all!

There is no stable way to prevent this behavior in Rust 1.0.

Note that taking &mut self means that even if you could suppress recursive Drop, Rust will prevent you from e.g. moving fields out of self. For most types, this is totally fine.

For instance, a custom implementation of Box might write Drop like this:

#![feature(alloc, heap_api, drop_in_place, unique)]
  
  extern crate alloc;
  
  use std::ptr::{drop_in_place, Unique};
  use std::mem;
  
  use alloc::heap;
  
  struct Box<T>{ ptr: Unique<T> }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Box<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              drop_in_place(*self.ptr);
              heap::deallocate((*self.ptr) as *mut u8,
                               mem::size_of::<T>(),
                               mem::align_of::<T>());
          }
      }
  }

and this works fine because when Rust goes to drop the ptr field it just sees a [Unique] that has no actual Drop implementation. Similarly nothing can use-after-free the ptr because when drop exits, it becomes inaccessible.

However this wouldn’t work:

#![feature(alloc, heap_api, drop_in_place, unique)]
  
  extern crate alloc;
  
  use std::ptr::{drop_in_place, Unique};
  use std::mem;
  
  use alloc::heap;
  
  struct Box<T>{ ptr: Unique<T> }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Box<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              drop_in_place(*self.ptr);
              heap::deallocate((*self.ptr) as *mut u8,
                               mem::size_of::<T>(),
                               mem::align_of::<T>());
          }
      }
  }
  
  struct SuperBox<T> { my_box: Box<T> }
  
  impl<T> Drop for SuperBox<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              // Hyper-optimized: deallocate the box's contents for it
              // without `drop`ing the contents
              heap::deallocate((*self.my_box.ptr) as *mut u8,
                               mem::size_of::<T>(),
                               mem::align_of::<T>());
          }
      }
  }

After we deallocate the box’s ptr in SuperBox’s destructor, Rust will happily proceed to tell the box to Drop itself and everything will blow up with use-after-frees and double-frees.

Note that the recursive drop behavior applies to all structs and enums regardless of whether they implement Drop. Therefore something like

struct Boxy<T> {
      data1: Box<T>,
      data2: Box<T>,
      info: u32,
  }

will have its data1 and data2’s fields destructors whenever it “would” be dropped, even though it itself doesn’t implement Drop. We say that such a type needs Drop, even though it is not itself Drop.

Similarly,

enum Link {
      Next(Box<Link>),
      None,
  }

will have its inner Box field dropped if and only if an instance stores the Next variant.

In general this works really nicely because you don’t need to worry about adding/removing drops when you refactor your data layout. Still there’s certainly many valid usecases for needing to do trickier things with destructors.

The classic safe solution to overriding recursive drop and allowing moving out of Self during drop is to use an Option:

#![feature(alloc, heap_api, drop_in_place, unique)]
  
  extern crate alloc;
  
  use std::ptr::{drop_in_place, Unique};
  use std::mem;
  
  use alloc::heap;
  
  struct Box<T>{ ptr: Unique<T> }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Box<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              drop_in_place(*self.ptr);
              heap::deallocate((*self.ptr) as *mut u8,
                               mem::size_of::<T>(),
                               mem::align_of::<T>());
          }
      }
  }
  
  struct SuperBox<T> { my_box: Option<Box<T>> }
  
  impl<T> Drop for SuperBox<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              // Hyper-optimized: deallocate the box's contents for it
              // without `drop`ing the contents. Need to set the `box`
              // field as `None` to prevent Rust from trying to Drop it.
              let my_box = self.my_box.take().unwrap();
              heap::deallocate((*my_box.ptr) as *mut u8,
                               mem::size_of::<T>(),
                               mem::align_of::<T>());
              mem::forget(my_box);
          }
      }
  }

However this has fairly odd semantics: you’re saying that a field that should always be Some may be None, just because that happens in the destructor. Of course this conversely makes a lot of sense: you can call arbitrary methods on self during the destructor, and this should prevent you from ever doing so after deinitializing the field. Not that it will prevent you from producing any other arbitrarily invalid state in there.

On balance this is an ok choice. Certainly what you should reach for by default. However, in the future we expect there to be a first-class way to announce that a field shouldn’t be automatically dropped.

Leaking

Ownership-based resource management is intended to simplify composition. You acquire resources when you create the object, and you release the resources when it gets destroyed. Since destruction is handled for you, it means you can’t forget to release the resources, and it happens as soon as possible! Surely this is perfect and all of our problems are solved.

Everything is terrible and we have new and exotic problems to try to solve.

Many people like to believe that Rust eliminates resource leaks. In practice, this is basically true. You would be surprised to see a Safe Rust program leak resources in an uncontrolled way.

However from a theoretical perspective this is absolutely not the case, no matter how you look at it. In the strictest sense, “leaking” is so abstract as to be unpreventable. It’s quite trivial to initialize a collection at the start of a program, fill it with tons of objects with destructors, and then enter an infinite event loop that never refers to it. The collection will sit around uselessly, holding on to its precious resources until the program terminates (at which point all those resources would have been reclaimed by the OS anyway).

We may consider a more restricted form of leak: failing to drop a value that is unreachable. Rust also doesn’t prevent this. In fact Rust has a function for doing this: mem::forget. This function consumes the value it is passed and then doesn’t run its destructor.

In the past mem::forget was marked as unsafe as a sort of lint against using it, since failing to call a destructor is generally not a well-behaved thing to do (though useful for some special unsafe code). However this was generally determined to be an untenable stance to take: there are many ways to fail to call a destructor in safe code. The most famous example is creating a cycle of reference-counted pointers using interior mutability.

It is reasonable for safe code to assume that destructor leaks do not happen, as any program that leaks destructors is probably wrong. However unsafe code cannot rely on destructors to be run in order to be safe. For most types this doesn’t matter: if you leak the destructor then the type is by definition inaccessible, so it doesn’t matter, right? For instance, if you leak a Box<u8> then you waste some memory but that’s hardly going to violate memory-safety.

However where we must be careful with destructor leaks are proxy types. These are types which manage access to a distinct object, but don’t actually own it. Proxy objects are quite rare. Proxy objects you’ll need to care about are even rarer. However we’ll focus on three interesting examples in the standard library:

• vec::Drain
• Rc
• thread::scoped::JoinGuard

let mut vec = vec![Box::new(0); 4];
  
  {
      // start draining, vec can no longer be accessed
      let mut drainer = vec.drain(..);
  
      // pull out two elements and immediately drop them
      drainer.next();
      drainer.next();
  
      // get rid of drainer, but don't call its destructor
      mem::forget(drainer);
  }
  
  // Oops, vec[0] was dropped, we're reading a pointer into free'd memory!
  println!("{}", vec[0]);

struct Rc<T> {
      ptr: *mut RcBox<T>,
  }
  
  struct RcBox<T> {
      data: T,
      ref_count: usize,
  }
  
  impl<T> Rc<T> {
      fn new(data: T) -> Self {
          unsafe {
              // Wouldn't it be nice if heap::allocate worked like this?
              let ptr = heap::allocate::<RcBox<T>>();
              ptr::write(ptr, RcBox {
                  data: data,
                  ref_count: 1,
              });
              Rc { ptr: ptr }
          }
      }
  
      fn clone(&self) -> Self {
          unsafe {
              (*self.ptr).ref_count += 1;
          }
          Rc { ptr: self.ptr }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Rc<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              (*self.ptr).ref_count -= 1;
              if (*self.ptr).ref_count == 0 {
                  // drop the data and then free it
                  ptr::read(self.ptr);
                  heap::deallocate(self.ptr);
              }
          }
      }
  }

pub fn scoped<'a, F>(f: F) -> JoinGuard<'a>
      where F: FnOnce() + Send + 'a

let mut data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
  {
      let guards = vec![];
      for x in &mut data {
          // Move the mutable reference into the closure, and execute
          // it on a different thread. The closure has a lifetime bound
          // by the lifetime of the mutable reference `x` we store in it.
          // The guard that is returned is in turn assigned the lifetime
          // of the closure, so it also mutably borrows `data` as `x` did.
          // This means we cannot access `data` until the guard goes away.
          let guard = thread::scoped(move || {
              *x *= 2;
          });
          // store the thread's guard for later
          guards.push(guard);
      }
      // All guards are dropped here, forcing the threads to join
      // (this thread blocks here until the others terminate).
      // Once the threads join, the borrow expires and the data becomes
      // accessible again in this thread.
  }
  // data is definitely mutated here.

let mut data = Box::new(0);
  {
      let guard = thread::scoped(|| {
          // This is at best a data race. At worst, it's also a use-after-free.
          *data += 1;
      });
      // Because the guard is forgotten, expiring the loan without blocking this
      // thread.
      mem::forget(guard);
  }
  // So the Box is dropped here while the scoped thread may or may not be trying
  // to access it.

Exception Safety

Although programs should use unwinding sparingly, there’s a lot of code that can panic. If you unwrap a None, index out of bounds, or divide by 0, your program will panic. On debug builds, every arithmetic operation can panic if it overflows. Unless you are very careful and tightly control what code runs, pretty much everything can unwind, and you need to be ready for it.

Being ready for unwinding is often referred to as exception safety in the broader programming world. In Rust, there are two levels of exception safety that one may concern themselves with:

• In unsafe code, we must be exception safe to the point of not violating memory safety. We’ll call this minimal exception safety.

• In safe code, it is good to be exception safe to the point of your program doing the right thing. We’ll call this maximal exception safety.

As is the case in many places in Rust, Unsafe code must be ready to deal with bad Safe code when it comes to unwinding. Code that transiently creates unsound states must be careful that a panic does not cause that state to be used. Generally this means ensuring that only non-panicking code is run while these states exist, or making a guard that cleans up the state in the case of a panic. This does not necessarily mean that the state a panic witnesses is a fully coherent state. We need only guarantee that it’s a safe state.

Most Unsafe code is leaf-like, and therefore fairly easy to make exception-safe. It controls all the code that runs, and most of that code can’t panic. However it is not uncommon for Unsafe code to work with arrays of temporarily uninitialized data while repeatedly invoking caller-provided code. Such code needs to be careful and consider exception safety.

impl<T: Clone> Vec<T> {
      fn push_all(&mut self, to_push: &[T]) {
          self.reserve(to_push.len());
          unsafe {
              // can't overflow because we just reserved this
              self.set_len(self.len() + to_push.len());
  
              for (i, x) in to_push.iter().enumerate() {
                  self.ptr().offset(i as isize).write(x.clone());
              }
          }
      }
  }

bubble_up(heap, index):
      while index != 0 && heap[index] < heap[parent(index)]:
          heap.swap(index, parent(index))
          index = parent(index)
  

bubble_up(heap, index):
      let elem = heap[index]
      while index != 0 && element < heap[parent(index)]:
          heap[index] = heap[parent(index)]
          index = parent(index)
      heap[index] = elem

bubble_up(heap, index):
      let end_index = index;
      while end_index != 0 && heap[end_index] < heap[parent(end_index)]:
          end_index = parent(end_index)
  
      let elem = heap[index]
      while index != end_index:
          heap[index] = heap[parent(index)]
          index = parent(index)
      heap[index] = elem

bubble_up(heap, index):
      let elem = heap[index]
      try:
          while index != 0 && element < heap[parent(index)]:
              heap[index] = heap[parent(index)]
              index = parent(index)
      finally:
          heap[index] = elem

struct Hole<'a, T: 'a> {
      data: &'a mut [T],
      /// `elt` is always `Some` from new until drop.
      elt: Option<T>,
      pos: usize,
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Hole<'a, T> {
      fn new(data: &'a mut [T], pos: usize) -> Self {
          unsafe {
              let elt = ptr::read(&data[pos]);
              Hole {
                  data: data,
                  elt: Some(elt),
                  pos: pos,
              }
          }
      }
  
      fn pos(&self) -> usize { self.pos }
  
      fn removed(&self) -> &T { self.elt.as_ref().unwrap() }
  
      unsafe fn get(&self, index: usize) -> &T { &self.data[index] }
  
      unsafe fn move_to(&mut self, index: usize) {
          let index_ptr: *const _ = &self.data[index];
          let hole_ptr = &mut self.data[self.pos];
          ptr::copy_nonoverlapping(index_ptr, hole_ptr, 1);
          self.pos = index;
      }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Drop for Hole<'a, T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          // fill the hole again
          unsafe {
              let pos = self.pos;
              ptr::write(&mut self.data[pos], self.elt.take().unwrap());
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T: Ord> BinaryHeap<T> {
      fn sift_up(&mut self, pos: usize) {
          unsafe {
              // Take out the value at `pos` and create a hole.
              let mut hole = Hole::new(&mut self.data, pos);
  
              while hole.pos() != 0 {
                  let parent = parent(hole.pos());
                  if hole.removed() <= hole.get(parent) { break }
                  hole.move_to(parent);
              }
              // Hole will be unconditionally filled here; panic or not!
          }
      }
  }

Poisoning

Although all unsafe code must ensure it has minimal exception safety, not all types ensure maximal exception safety. Even if the type does, your code may ascribe additional meaning to it. For instance, an integer is certainly exception-safe, but has no semantics on its own. It’s possible that code that panics could fail to correctly update the integer, producing an inconsistent program state.

This is usually fine, because anything that witnesses an exception is about to get destroyed. For instance, if you send a Vec to another thread and that thread panics, it doesn’t matter if the Vec is in a weird state. It will be dropped and go away forever. However some types are especially good at smuggling values across the panic boundary.

These types may choose to explicitly poison themselves if they witness a panic. Poisoning doesn’t entail anything in particular. Generally it just means preventing normal usage from proceeding. The most notable example of this is the standard library’s Mutex type. A Mutex will poison itself if one of its MutexGuards (the thing it returns when a lock is obtained) is dropped during a panic. Any future attempts to lock the Mutex will return an Err or panic.

Mutex poisons not for true safety in the sense that Rust normally cares about. It poisons as a safety-guard against blindly using the data that comes out of a Mutex that has witnessed a panic while locked. The data in such a Mutex was likely in the middle of being modified, and as such may be in an inconsistent or incomplete state. It is important to note that one cannot violate memory safety with such a type if it is correctly written. After all, it must be minimally exception-safe!

However if the Mutex contained, say, a BinaryHeap that does not actually have the heap property, it’s unlikely that any code that uses it will do what the author intended. As such, the program should not proceed normally. Still, if you’re double-plus-sure that you can do something with the value, the Mutex exposes a method to get the lock anyway. It is safe, after all. Just maybe nonsense.

Races

Safe Rust guarantees an absence of data races, which are defined as:

• two or more threads concurrently accessing a location of memory
• one of them is a write
• one of them is unsynchronized

A data race has Undefined Behavior, and is therefore impossible to perform in Safe Rust. Data races are mostly prevented through rust’s ownership system: it’s impossible to alias a mutable reference, so it’s impossible to perform a data race. Interior mutability makes this more complicated, which is largely why we have the Send and Sync traits (see below).

However Rust does not prevent general race conditions.

This is pretty fundamentally impossible, and probably honestly undesirable. Your hardware is racy, your OS is racy, the other programs on your computer are racy, and the world this all runs in is racy. Any system that could genuinely claim to prevent all race conditions would be pretty awful to use, if not just incorrect.

So it’s perfectly “fine” for a Safe Rust program to get deadlocked or do something incredibly stupid with incorrect synchronization. Obviously such a program isn’t very good, but Rust can only hold your hand so far. Still, a race condition can’t violate memory safety in a Rust program on its own. Only in conjunction with some other unsafe code can a race condition actually violate memory safety. For instance:

use std::thread;
  use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicUsize, Ordering};
  use std::sync::Arc;
  
  let data = vec![1, 2, 3, 4];
  // Arc so that the memory the AtomicUsize is stored in still exists for
  // the other thread to increment, even if we completely finish executing
  // before it. Rust won't compile the program without it, because of the
  // lifetime requirements of thread::spawn!
  let idx = Arc::new(AtomicUsize::new(0));
  let other_idx = idx.clone();
  
  // `move` captures other_idx by-value, moving it into this thread
  thread::spawn(move || {
      // It's ok to mutate idx because this value
      // is an atomic, so it can't cause a Data Race.
      other_idx.fetch_add(10, Ordering::SeqCst);
  });
  
  // Index with the value loaded from the atomic. This is safe because we
  // read the atomic memory only once, and then pass a copy of that value
  // to the Vec's indexing implementation. This indexing will be correctly
  // bounds checked, and there's no chance of the value getting changed
  // in the middle. However our program may panic if the thread we spawned
  // managed to increment before this ran. A race condition because correct
  // program execution (panicking is rarely correct) depends on order of
  // thread execution.
  println!("{}", data[idx.load(Ordering::SeqCst)]);

use std::thread;
  use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicUsize, Ordering};
  use std::sync::Arc;
  
  let data = vec![1, 2, 3, 4];
  
  let idx = Arc::new(AtomicUsize::new(0));
  let other_idx = idx.clone();
  
  // `move` captures other_idx by-value, moving it into this thread
  thread::spawn(move || {
      // It's ok to mutate idx because this value
      // is an atomic, so it can't cause a Data Race.
      other_idx.fetch_add(10, Ordering::SeqCst);
  });
  
  if idx.load(Ordering::SeqCst) < data.len() {
      unsafe {
          // Incorrectly loading the idx after we did the bounds check.
          // It could have changed. This is a race condition, *and dangerous*
          // because we decided to do `get_unchecked`, which is `unsafe`.
          println!("{}", data.get_unchecked(idx.load(Ordering::SeqCst)));
      }
  }

Send and Sync

Not everything obeys inherited mutability, though. Some types allow you to multiply alias a location in memory while mutating it. Unless these types use synchronization to manage this access, they are absolutely not thread safe. Rust captures this through the Send and Sync traits.

• A type is Send if it is safe to send it to another thread.
• A type is Sync if it is safe to share between threads (&T is Send).

Send and Sync are fundamental to Rust’s concurrency story. As such, a substantial amount of special tooling exists to make them work right. First and foremost, they’re [unsafe traits]. This means that they are unsafe to implement, and other unsafe code can assume that they are correctly implemented. Since they’re marker traits (they have no associated items like methods), correctly implemented simply means that they have the intrinsic properties an implementor should have. Incorrectly implementing Send or Sync can cause Undefined Behavior.

Send and Sync are also automatically derived traits. This means that, unlike every other trait, if a type is composed entirely of Send or Sync types, then it is Send or Sync. Almost all primitives are Send and Sync, and as a consequence pretty much all types you’ll ever interact with are Send and Sync.

Major exceptions include:

• raw pointers are neither Send nor Sync (because they have no safety guards).
• UnsafeCell isn’t Sync (and therefore Cell and RefCell aren’t).
• Rc isn’t Send or Sync (because the refcount is shared and unsynchronized).

Rc and UnsafeCell are very fundamentally not thread-safe: they enable unsynchronized shared mutable state. However raw pointers are, strictly speaking, marked as thread-unsafe as more of a lint. Doing anything useful with a raw pointer requires dereferencing it, which is already unsafe. In that sense, one could argue that it would be “fine” for them to be marked as thread safe.

However it’s important that they aren’t thread safe to prevent types that contain them from being automatically marked as thread safe. These types have non-trivial untracked ownership, and it’s unlikely that their author was necessarily thinking hard about thread safety. In the case of Rc, we have a nice example of a type that contains a *mut that is definitely not thread safe.

Types that aren’t automatically derived can simply implement them if desired:

struct MyBox(*mut u8);
  
  unsafe impl Send for MyBox {}
  unsafe impl Sync for MyBox {}

In the incredibly rare case that a type is inappropriately automatically derived to be Send or Sync, then one can also unimplement Send and Sync:

#![feature(optin_builtin_traits)]
  
  // I have some magic semantics for some synchronization primitive!
  struct SpecialThreadToken(u8);
  
  impl !Send for SpecialThreadToken {}
  impl !Sync for SpecialThreadToken {}

Note that in and of itself it is impossible to incorrectly derive Send and Sync. Only types that are ascribed special meaning by other unsafe code can possible cause trouble by being incorrectly Send or Sync.

Most uses of raw pointers should be encapsulated behind a sufficient abstraction that Send and Sync can be derived. For instance all of Rust’s standard collections are Send and Sync (when they contain Send and Sync types) in spite of their pervasive use of raw pointers to manage allocations and complex ownership. Similarly, most iterators into these collections are Send and Sync because they largely behave like an & or &mut into the collection.

TODO: better explain what can or can’t be Send or Sync. Sufficient to appeal only to data races?

Atomics

Rust pretty blatantly just inherits C11’s memory model for atomics. This is not due to this model being particularly excellent or easy to understand. Indeed, this model is quite complex and known to have several flaws. Rather, it is a pragmatic concession to the fact that everyone is pretty bad at modeling atomics. At very least, we can benefit from existing tooling and research around C.

Trying to fully explain the model in this book is fairly hopeless. It’s defined in terms of madness-inducing causality graphs that require a full book to properly understand in a practical way. If you want all the nitty-gritty details, you should check out C’s specification (Section 7.17). Still, we’ll try to cover the basics and some of the problems Rust developers face.

The C11 memory model is fundamentally about trying to bridge the gap between the semantics we want, the optimizations compilers want, and the inconsistent chaos our hardware wants. We would like to just write programs and have them do exactly what we said but, you know, fast. Wouldn’t that be great?

x = 1;
  y = 3;
  x = 2;

x = 2;
  y = 3;

initial state: x = 0, y = 1
  
  THREAD 1        THREAD2
  y = 3;          if x == 1 {
  x = 1;              y *= 2;
                  }

use std::sync::Arc;
  use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicBool, Ordering};
  use std::thread;
  
  fn main() {
      let lock = Arc::new(AtomicBool::new(false)); // value answers "am I locked?"
  
      // ... distribute lock to threads somehow ...
  
      // Try to acquire the lock by setting it to true
      while lock.compare_and_swap(false, true, Ordering::Acquire) { }
      // broke out of the loop, so we successfully acquired the lock!
  
      // ... scary data accesses ...
  
      // ok we're done, release the lock
      lock.store(false, Ordering::Release);
  }

Layout

First off, we need to come up with the struct layout. A Vec has three parts: a pointer to the allocation, the size of the allocation, and the number of elements that have been initialized.

Naively, this means we just want this design:

pub struct Vec<T> {
      ptr: *mut T,
      cap: usize,
      len: usize,
  }

And indeed this would compile. Unfortunately, it would be incorrect. First, the compiler will give us too strict variance. So a &Vec<&'static str> couldn’t be used where an &Vec<&'a str> was expected. More importantly, it will give incorrect ownership information to the drop checker, as it will conservatively assume we don’t own any values of type T. See the chapter on ownership and lifetimes for all the details on variance and drop check.

As we saw in the ownership chapter, we should use Unique<T> in place of *mut T when we have a raw pointer to an allocation we own. Unique is unstable, so we’d like to not use it if possible, though.

As a recap, Unique is a wrapper around a raw pointer that declares that:

• We are variant over T
• We may own a value of type T (for drop check)
• We are Send/Sync if T is Send/Sync
• We deref to *mut T (so it largely acts like a *mut in our code)
• Our pointer is never null (so Option<Vec<T>> is null-pointer-optimized)

We can implement all of the above requirements except for the last one in stable Rust:

use std::marker::PhantomData;
  use std::ops::Deref;
  use std::mem;
  
  struct Unique<T> {
      ptr: *const T,              // *const for variance
      _marker: PhantomData<T>,    // For the drop checker
  }
  
  // Deriving Send and Sync is safe because we are the Unique owners
  // of this data. It's like Unique<T> is "just" T.
  unsafe impl<T: Send> Send for Unique<T> {}
  unsafe impl<T: Sync> Sync for Unique<T> {}
  
  impl<T> Unique<T> {
      pub fn new(ptr: *mut T) -> Self {
          Unique { ptr: ptr, _marker: PhantomData }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Deref for Unique<T> {
      type Target = *mut T;
      fn deref(&self) -> &*mut T {
          // There's no way to cast the *const to a *mut
          // while also taking a reference. So we just
          // transmute it since it's all "just pointers".
          unsafe { mem::transmute(&self.ptr) }
      }
  }

Unfortunately the mechanism for stating that your value is non-zero is unstable and unlikely to be stabilized soon. As such we’re just going to take the hit and use std’s Unique:

#![feature(unique)]
  
  use std::ptr::{Unique, self};
  
  pub struct Vec<T> {
      ptr: Unique<T>,
      cap: usize,
      len: usize,
  }

If you don’t care about the null-pointer optimization, then you can use the stable code. However we will be designing the rest of the code around enabling the optimization. In particular, Unique::new is unsafe to call, because putting null inside of it is Undefined Behavior. Our stable Unique doesn’t need new to be unsafe because it doesn’t make any interesting guarantees about its contents.

Allocating

Using Unique throws a wrench in an important feature of Vec (and indeed all of the std collections): an empty Vec doesn’t actually allocate at all. So if we can’t allocate, but also can’t put a null pointer in ptr, what do we do in Vec::new? Well, we just put some other garbage in there!

This is perfectly fine because we already have cap == 0 as our sentinel for no allocation. We don’t even need to handle it specially in almost any code because we usually need to check if cap > len or len > 0 anyway. The traditional Rust value to put here is 0x01. The standard library actually exposes this as alloc::heap::EMPTY. There are quite a few places where we’ll want to use heap::EMPTY because there’s no real allocation to talk about but null would make the compiler do bad things.

All of the heap API is totally unstable under the heap_api feature, though. We could trivially define heap::EMPTY ourselves, but we’ll want the rest of the heap API anyway, so let’s just get that dependency over with.

So:

#![feature(alloc, heap_api)]
  
  use std::mem;
  
  use alloc::heap::EMPTY;
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      fn new() -> Self {
          assert!(mem::size_of::<T>() != 0, "We're not ready to handle ZSTs");
          unsafe {
              // need to cast EMPTY to the actual ptr type we want, let
              // inference handle it.
              Vec { ptr: Unique::new(heap::EMPTY as *mut _), len: 0, cap: 0 }
          }
      }
  }

I slipped in that assert there because zero-sized types will require some special handling throughout our code, and I want to defer the issue for now. Without this assert, some of our early drafts will do some Very Bad Things.

Next we need to figure out what to actually do when we do want space. For that, we’ll need to use the rest of the heap APIs. These basically allow us to talk directly to Rust’s allocator (jemalloc by default).

We’ll also need a way to handle out-of-memory (OOM) conditions. The standard library calls the abort intrinsic, which just calls an illegal instruction to crash the whole program. The reason we abort and don’t panic is because unwinding can cause allocations to happen, and that seems like a bad thing to do when your allocator just came back with “hey I don’t have any more memory”.

Of course, this is a bit silly since most platforms don’t actually run out of memory in a conventional way. Your operating system will probably kill the application by another means if you legitimately start using up all the memory. The most likely way we’ll trigger OOM is by just asking for ludicrous quantities of memory at once (e.g. half the theoretical address space). As such it’s probably fine to panic and nothing bad will happen. Still, we’re trying to be like the standard library as much as possible, so we’ll just kill the whole program.

We said we don’t want to use intrinsics, so doing exactly what std does is out. Instead, we’ll call std::process::exit with some random number.

fn oom() {
      ::std::process::exit(-9999);
  }

Okay, now we can write growing. Roughly, we want to have this logic:

if cap == 0:
      allocate()
      cap = 1
  else:
      reallocate()
      cap *= 2

But Rust’s only supported allocator API is so low level that we’ll need to do a fair bit of extra work. We also need to guard against some special conditions that can occur with really large allocations or empty allocations.

In particular, ptr::offset will cause us a lot of trouble, because it has the semantics of LLVM’s GEP inbounds instruction. If you’re fortunate enough to not have dealt with this instruction, here’s the basic story with GEP: alias analysis, alias analysis, alias analysis. It’s super important to an optimizing compiler to be able to reason about data dependencies and aliasing.

As a simple example, consider the following fragment of code:

*x *= 7;
  *y *= 3;

If the compiler can prove that x and y point to different locations in memory, the two operations can in theory be executed in parallel (by e.g. loading them into different registers and working on them independently). However the compiler can’t do this in general because if x and y point to the same location in memory, the operations need to be done to the same value, and they can’t just be merged afterwards.

When you use GEP inbounds, you are specifically telling LLVM that the offsets you’re about to do are within the bounds of a single “allocated” entity. The ultimate payoff being that LLVM can assume that if two pointers are known to point to two disjoint objects, all the offsets of those pointers are also known to not alias (because you won’t just end up in some random place in memory). LLVM is heavily optimized to work with GEP offsets, and inbounds offsets are the best of all, so it’s important that we use them as much as possible.

So that’s what GEP’s about, how can it cause us trouble?

The first problem is that we index into arrays with unsigned integers, but GEP (and as a consequence ptr::offset) takes a signed integer. This means that half of the seemingly valid indices into an array will overflow GEP and actually go in the wrong direction! As such we must limit all allocations to isize::MAX elements. This actually means we only need to worry about byte-sized objects, because e.g. > isize::MAX u16s will truly exhaust all of the system’s memory. However in order to avoid subtle corner cases where someone reinterprets some array of < isize::MAX objects as bytes, std limits all allocations to isize::MAX bytes.

On all 64-bit targets that Rust currently supports we’re artificially limited to significantly less than all 64 bits of the address space (modern x64 platforms only expose 48-bit addressing), so we can rely on just running out of memory first. However on 32-bit targets, particularly those with extensions to use more of the address space (PAE x86 or x32), it’s theoretically possible to successfully allocate more than isize::MAX bytes of memory.

However since this is a tutorial, we’re not going to be particularly optimal here, and just unconditionally check, rather than use clever platform-specific cfgs.

The other corner-case we need to worry about is empty allocations. There will be two kinds of empty allocations we need to worry about: cap = 0 for all T, and cap > 0 for zero-sized types.

These cases are tricky because they come down to what LLVM means by “allocated”. LLVM’s notion of an allocation is significantly more abstract than how we usually use it. Because LLVM needs to work with different languages’ semantics and custom allocators, it can’t really intimately understand allocation. Instead, the main idea behind allocation is “doesn’t overlap with other stuff”. That is, heap allocations, stack allocations, and globals don’t randomly overlap. Yep, it’s about alias analysis. As such, Rust can technically play a bit fast and loose with the notion of an allocation as long as it’s consistent.

Getting back to the empty allocation case, there are a couple of places where we want to offset by 0 as a consequence of generic code. The question is then: is it consistent to do so? For zero-sized types, we have concluded that it is indeed consistent to do a GEP inbounds offset by an arbitrary number of elements. This is a runtime no-op because every element takes up no space, and it’s fine to pretend that there’s infinite zero-sized types allocated at 0x01. No allocator will ever allocate that address, because they won’t allocate 0x00 and they generally allocate to some minimal alignment higher than a byte. Also generally the whole first page of memory is protected from being allocated anyway (a whole 4k, on many platforms).

However what about for positive-sized types? That one’s a bit trickier. In principle, you can argue that offsetting by 0 gives LLVM no information: either there’s an element before the address or after it, but it can’t know which. However we’ve chosen to conservatively assume that it may do bad things. As such we will guard against this case explicitly.

Phew

Ok with all the nonsense out of the way, let’s actually allocate some memory:

fn grow(&mut self) {
      // this is all pretty delicate, so let's say it's all unsafe
      unsafe {
          // current API requires us to specify size and alignment manually.
          let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
          let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
  
          let (new_cap, ptr) = if self.cap == 0 {
              let ptr = heap::allocate(elem_size, align);
              (1, ptr)
          } else {
              // as an invariant, we can assume that `self.cap < isize::MAX`,
              // so this doesn't need to be checked.
              let new_cap = self.cap * 2;
              // Similarly this can't overflow due to previously allocating this
              let old_num_bytes = self.cap * elem_size;
  
              // check that the new allocation doesn't exceed `isize::MAX` at all
              // regardless of the actual size of the capacity. This combines the
              // `new_cap <= isize::MAX` and `new_num_bytes <= usize::MAX` checks
              // we need to make. We lose the ability to allocate e.g. 2/3rds of
              // the address space with a single Vec of i16's on 32-bit though.
              // Alas, poor Yorick -- I knew him, Horatio.
              assert!(old_num_bytes <= (::std::isize::MAX as usize) / 2,
                      "capacity overflow");
  
              let new_num_bytes = old_num_bytes * 2;
              let ptr = heap::reallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _,
                                          old_num_bytes,
                                          new_num_bytes,
                                          align);
              (new_cap, ptr)
          };
  
          // If allocate or reallocate fail, we'll get `null` back
          if ptr.is_null() { oom(); }
  
          self.ptr = Unique::new(ptr as *mut _);
          self.cap = new_cap;
      }
  }

Nothing particularly tricky here. Just computing sizes and alignments and doing some careful multiplication checks.

Push and Pop

Alright. We can initialize. We can allocate. Let’s actually implement some functionality! Let’s start with push. All it needs to do is check if we’re full to grow, unconditionally write to the next index, and then increment our length.

To do the write we have to be careful not to evaluate the memory we want to write to. At worst, it’s truly uninitialized memory from the allocator. At best it’s the bits of some old value we popped off. Either way, we can’t just index to the memory and dereference it, because that will evaluate the memory as a valid instance of T. Worse, foo[idx] = x will try to call drop on the old value of foo[idx]!

The correct way to do this is with ptr::write, which just blindly overwrites the target address with the bits of the value we provide. No evaluation involved.

For push, if the old len (before push was called) is 0, then we want to write to the 0th index. So we should offset by the old len.

pub fn push(&mut self, elem: T) {
      if self.len == self.cap { self.grow(); }
  
      unsafe {
          ptr::write(self.ptr.offset(self.len as isize), elem);
      }
  
      // Can't fail, we'll OOM first.
      self.len += 1;
  }

Easy! How about pop? Although this time the index we want to access is initialized, Rust won’t just let us dereference the location of memory to move the value out, because that would leave the memory uninitialized! For this we need ptr::read, which just copies out the bits from the target address and interprets it as a value of type T. This will leave the memory at this address logically uninitialized, even though there is in fact a perfectly good instance of T there.

For pop, if the old len is 1, we want to read out of the 0th index. So we should offset by the new len.

pub fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
      if self.len == 0 {
          None
      } else {
          self.len -= 1;
          unsafe {
              Some(ptr::read(self.ptr.offset(self.len as isize)))
          }
      }
  }

Deallocating

Next we should implement Drop so that we don’t massively leak tons of resources. The easiest way is to just call pop until it yields None, and then deallocate our buffer. Note that calling pop is unneeded if T: !Drop. In theory we can ask Rust if T needs_drop and omit the calls to pop. However in practice LLVM is really good at removing simple side-effect free code like this, so I wouldn’t bother unless you notice it’s not being stripped (in this case it is).

We must not call heap::deallocate when self.cap == 0, as in this case we haven’t actually allocated any memory.

impl<T> Drop for Vec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          if self.cap != 0 {
              while let Some(_) = self.pop() { }
  
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
              let num_bytes = elem_size * self.cap;
              unsafe {
                  heap::deallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _, num_bytes, align);
              }
          }
      }
  }

Deref

Alright! We’ve got a decent minimal stack implemented. We can push, we can pop, and we can clean up after ourselves. However there’s a whole mess of functionality we’d reasonably want. In particular, we have a proper array, but none of the slice functionality. That’s actually pretty easy to solve: we can implement Deref<Target=[T]>. This will magically make our Vec coerce to, and behave like, a slice in all sorts of conditions.

All we need is slice::from_raw_parts. It will correctly handle empty slices for us. Later once we set up zero-sized type support it will also Just Work for those too.

use std::ops::Deref;
  
  impl<T> Deref for Vec<T> {
      type Target = [T];
      fn deref(&self) -> &[T] {
          unsafe {
              ::std::slice::from_raw_parts(*self.ptr, self.len)
          }
      }
  }

And let’s do DerefMut too:

use std::ops::DerefMut;
  
  impl<T> DerefMut for Vec<T> {
      fn deref_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [T] {
          unsafe {
              ::std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut(*self.ptr, self.len)
          }
      }
  }

Now we have len, first, last, indexing, slicing, sorting, iter, iter_mut, and all other sorts of bells and whistles provided by slice. Sweet!

Insert and Remove

Something not provided by slice is insert and remove, so let’s do those next.

Insert needs to shift all the elements at the target index to the right by one. To do this we need to use ptr::copy, which is our version of C’s memmove. This copies some chunk of memory from one location to another, correctly handling the case where the source and destination overlap (which will definitely happen here).

If we insert at index i, we want to shift the [i .. len] to [i+1 .. len+1] using the old len.

pub fn insert(&mut self, index: usize, elem: T) {
      // Note: `<=` because it's valid to insert after everything
      // which would be equivalent to push.
      assert!(index <= self.len, "index out of bounds");
      if self.cap == self.len { self.grow(); }
  
      unsafe {
          if index < self.len {
              // ptr::copy(src, dest, len): "copy from source to dest len elems"
              ptr::copy(self.ptr.offset(index as isize),
                        self.ptr.offset(index as isize + 1),
                        self.len - index);
          }
          ptr::write(self.ptr.offset(index as isize), elem);
          self.len += 1;
      }
  }

Remove behaves in the opposite manner. We need to shift all the elements from [i+1 .. len + 1] to [i .. len] using the new len.

pub fn remove(&mut self, index: usize) -> T {
      // Note: `<` because it's *not* valid to remove after everything
      assert!(index < self.len, "index out of bounds");
      unsafe {
          self.len -= 1;
          let result = ptr::read(self.ptr.offset(index as isize));
          ptr::copy(self.ptr.offset(index as isize + 1),
                    self.ptr.offset(index as isize),
                    self.len - index);
          result
      }
  }

IntoIter

Let’s move on to writing iterators. iter and iter_mut have already been written for us thanks to The Magic of Deref. However there’s two interesting iterators that Vec provides that slices can’t: into_iter and drain.

IntoIter consumes the Vec by-value, and can consequently yield its elements by-value. In order to enable this, IntoIter needs to take control of Vec’s allocation.

IntoIter needs to be DoubleEnded as well, to enable reading from both ends. Reading from the back could just be implemented as calling pop, but reading from the front is harder. We could call remove(0) but that would be insanely expensive. Instead we’re going to just use ptr::read to copy values out of either end of the Vec without mutating the buffer at all.

To do this we’re going to use a very common C idiom for array iteration. We’ll make two pointers; one that points to the start of the array, and one that points to one-element past the end. When we want an element from one end, we’ll read out the value pointed to at that end and move the pointer over by one. When the two pointers are equal, we know we’re done.

Note that the order of read and offset are reversed for next and next_back For next_back the pointer is always after the element it wants to read next, while for next the pointer is always at the element it wants to read next. To see why this is, consider the case where every element but one has been yielded.

The array looks like this:

          S  E
  [X, X, X, O, X, X, X]

If E pointed directly at the element it wanted to yield next, it would be indistinguishable from the case where there are no more elements to yield.

Although we don’t actually care about it during iteration, we also need to hold onto the Vec’s allocation information in order to free it once IntoIter is dropped.

So we’re going to use the following struct:

struct IntoIter<T> {
      buf: Unique<T>,
      cap: usize,
      start: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }

And this is what we end up with for initialization:

impl<T> Vec<T> {
      fn into_iter(self) -> IntoIter<T> {
          // Can't destructure Vec since it's Drop
          let ptr = self.ptr;
          let cap = self.cap;
          let len = self.len;
  
          // Make sure not to drop Vec since that will free the buffer
          mem::forget(self);
  
          unsafe {
              IntoIter {
                  buf: ptr,
                  cap: cap,
                  start: *ptr,
                  end: if cap == 0 {
                      // can't offset off this pointer, it's not allocated!
                      *ptr
                  } else {
                      ptr.offset(len as isize)
                  }
              }
          }
      }
  }

Here’s iterating forward:

impl<T> Iterator for IntoIter<T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  let result = ptr::read(self.start);
                  self.start = self.start.offset(1);
                  Some(result)
              }
          }
      }
  
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) {
          let len = (self.end as usize - self.start as usize)
                    / mem::size_of::<T>();
          (len, Some(len))
      }
  }

And here’s iterating backwards.

impl<T> DoubleEndedIterator for IntoIter<T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  self.end = self.end.offset(-1);
                  Some(ptr::read(self.end))
              }
          }
      }
  }

Because IntoIter takes ownership of its allocation, it needs to implement Drop to free it. However it also wants to implement Drop to drop any elements it contains that weren’t yielded.

impl<T> Drop for IntoIter<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          if self.cap != 0 {
              // drop any remaining elements
              for _ in &mut *self {}
  
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
              let num_bytes = elem_size * self.cap;
              unsafe {
                  heap::deallocate(*self.buf as *mut _, num_bytes, align);
              }
          }
      }
  }

RawVec

We’ve actually reached an interesting situation here: we’ve duplicated the logic for specifying a buffer and freeing its memory in Vec and IntoIter. Now that we’ve implemented it and identified actual logic duplication, this is a good time to perform some logic compression.

We’re going to abstract out the (ptr, cap) pair and give them the logic for allocating, growing, and freeing:

struct RawVec<T> {
      ptr: Unique<T>,
      cap: usize,
  }
  
  impl<T> RawVec<T> {
      fn new() -> Self {
          assert!(mem::size_of::<T>() != 0, "TODO: implement ZST support");
          unsafe {
              RawVec { ptr: Unique::new(heap::EMPTY as *mut T), cap: 0 }
          }
      }
  
      // unchanged from Vec
      fn grow(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
  
              let (new_cap, ptr) = if self.cap == 0 {
                  let ptr = heap::allocate(elem_size, align);
                  (1, ptr)
              } else {
                  let new_cap = 2 * self.cap;
                  let ptr = heap::reallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _,
                                              self.cap * elem_size,
                                              new_cap * elem_size,
                                              align);
                  (new_cap, ptr)
              };
  
              // If allocate or reallocate fail, we'll get `null` back
              if ptr.is_null() { oom() }
  
              self.ptr = Unique::new(ptr as *mut _);
              self.cap = new_cap;
          }
      }
  }
  
  
  impl<T> Drop for RawVec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          if self.cap != 0 {
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
              let num_bytes = elem_size * self.cap;
              unsafe {
                  heap::deallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _, num_bytes, align);
              }
          }
      }
  }

And change Vec as follows:

pub struct Vec<T> {
      buf: RawVec<T>,
      len: usize,
  }
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      fn ptr(&self) -> *mut T { *self.buf.ptr }
  
      fn cap(&self) -> usize { self.buf.cap }
  
      pub fn new() -> Self {
          Vec { buf: RawVec::new(), len: 0 }
      }
  
      // push/pop/insert/remove largely unchanged:
      // * `self.ptr -> self.ptr()`
      // * `self.cap -> self.cap()`
      // * `self.grow -> self.buf.grow()`
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Vec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          while let Some(_) = self.pop() {}
          // deallocation is handled by RawVec
      }
  }

And finally we can really simplify IntoIter:

struct IntoIter<T> {
      _buf: RawVec<T>, // we don't actually care about this. Just need it to live.
      start: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }
  
  // next and next_back literally unchanged since they never referred to the buf
  
  impl<T> Drop for IntoIter<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          // only need to ensure all our elements are read;
          // buffer will clean itself up afterwards.
          for _ in &mut *self {}
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      pub fn into_iter(self) -> IntoIter<T> {
          unsafe {
              // need to use ptr::read to unsafely move the buf out since it's
              // not Copy, and Vec implements Drop (so we can't destructure it).
              let buf = ptr::read(&self.buf);
              let len = self.len;
              mem::forget(self);
  
              IntoIter {
                  start: *buf.ptr,
                  end: buf.ptr.offset(len as isize),
                  _buf: buf,
              }
          }
      }
  }

Much better.

Drain

Let’s move on to Drain. Drain is largely the same as IntoIter, except that instead of consuming the Vec, it borrows the Vec and leaves its allocation untouched. For now we’ll only implement the “basic” full-range version.

use std::marker::PhantomData;
  
  struct Drain<'a, T: 'a> {
      // Need to bound the lifetime here, so we do it with `&'a mut Vec<T>`
      // because that's semantically what we contain. We're "just" calling
      // `pop()` and `remove(0)`.
      vec: PhantomData<&'a mut Vec<T>>
      start: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for Drain<'a, T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None

– wait, this is seeming familiar. Let’s do some more compression. Both IntoIter and Drain have the exact same structure, let’s just factor it out.

struct RawValIter<T> {
      start: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }
  
  impl<T> RawValIter<T> {
      // unsafe to construct because it has no associated lifetimes.
      // This is necessary to store a RawValIter in the same struct as
      // its actual allocation. OK since it's a private implementation
      // detail.
      unsafe fn new(slice: &[T]) -> Self {
          RawValIter {
              start: slice.as_ptr(),
              end: if slice.len() == 0 {
                  // if `len = 0`, then this is not actually allocated memory.
                  // Need to avoid offsetting because that will give wrong
                  // information to LLVM via GEP.
                  slice.as_ptr()
              } else {
                  slice.as_ptr().offset(slice.len() as isize)
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  // Iterator and DoubleEndedIterator impls identical to IntoIter.

And IntoIter becomes the following:

pub struct IntoIter<T> {
      _buf: RawVec<T>, // we don't actually care about this. Just need it to live.
      iter: RawValIter<T>,
  }
  
  impl<T> Iterator for IntoIter<T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next() }
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) { self.iter.size_hint() }
  }
  
  impl<T> DoubleEndedIterator for IntoIter<T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next_back() }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for IntoIter<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          for _ in &mut self.iter {}
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      pub fn into_iter(self) -> IntoIter<T> {
          unsafe {
              let iter = RawValIter::new(&self);
  
              let buf = ptr::read(&self.buf);
              mem::forget(self);
  
              IntoIter {
                  iter: iter,
                  _buf: buf,
              }
          }
      }
  }

Note that I’ve left a few quirks in this design to make upgrading Drain to work with arbitrary subranges a bit easier. In particular we could have RawValIter drain itself on drop, but that won’t work right for a more complex Drain. We also take a slice to simplify Drain initialization.

Alright, now Drain is really easy:

use std::marker::PhantomData;
  
  pub struct Drain<'a, T: 'a> {
      vec: PhantomData<&'a mut Vec<T>>,
      iter: RawValIter<T>,
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for Drain<'a, T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next() }
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) { self.iter.size_hint() }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for Drain<'a, T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next_back() }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Drop for Drain<'a, T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          for _ in &mut self.iter {}
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      pub fn drain(&mut self) -> Drain<T> {
          unsafe {
              let iter = RawValIter::new(&self);
  
              // this is a mem::forget safety thing. If Drain is forgotten, we just
              // leak the whole Vec's contents. Also we need to do this *eventually*
              // anyway, so why not do it now?
              self.len = 0;
  
              Drain {
                  iter: iter,
                  vec: PhantomData,
              }
          }
      }
  }

For more details on the mem::forget problem, see the section on leaks.

Handling Zero-Sized Types

It’s time. We’re going to fight the specter that is zero-sized types. Safe Rust never needs to care about this, but Vec is very intensive on raw pointers and raw allocations, which are exactly the two things that care about zero-sized types. We need to be careful of two things:

• The raw allocator API has undefined behavior if you pass in 0 for an allocation size.
• raw pointer offsets are no-ops for zero-sized types, which will break our C-style pointer iterator.

Thankfully we abstracted out pointer-iterators and allocating handling into RawValIter and RawVec respectively. How mysteriously convenient.

impl<T> RawVec<T> {
      fn new() -> Self {
          unsafe {
              // !0 is usize::MAX. This branch should be stripped at compile time.
              let cap = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 { !0 } else { 0 };
  
              // heap::EMPTY doubles as "unallocated" and "zero-sized allocation"
              RawVec { ptr: Unique::new(heap::EMPTY as *mut T), cap: cap }
          }
      }
  
      fn grow(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
  
              // since we set the capacity to usize::MAX when elem_size is
              // 0, getting to here necessarily means the Vec is overfull.
              assert!(elem_size != 0, "capacity overflow");
  
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
  
              let (new_cap, ptr) = if self.cap == 0 {
                  let ptr = heap::allocate(elem_size, align);
                  (1, ptr)
              } else {
                  let new_cap = 2 * self.cap;
                  let ptr = heap::reallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _,
                                              self.cap * elem_size,
                                              new_cap * elem_size,
                                              align);
                  (new_cap, ptr)
              };
  
              // If allocate or reallocate fail, we'll get `null` back
              if ptr.is_null() { oom() }
  
              self.ptr = Unique::new(ptr as *mut _);
              self.cap = new_cap;
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for RawVec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
  
          // don't free zero-sized allocations, as they were never allocated.
          if self.cap != 0 && elem_size != 0 {
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
  
              let num_bytes = elem_size * self.cap;
              unsafe {
                  heap::deallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _, num_bytes, align);
              }
          }
      }
  }

impl<T> RawValIter<T> {
      unsafe fn new(slice: &[T]) -> Self {
          RawValIter {
              start: slice.as_ptr(),
              end: if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                  ((slice.as_ptr() as usize) + slice.len()) as *const _
              } else if slice.len() == 0 {
                  slice.as_ptr()
              } else {
                  slice.as_ptr().offset(slice.len() as isize)
              }
          }
      }
  }

impl<T> Iterator for RawValIter<T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  let result = ptr::read(self.start);
                  self.start = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                      (self.start as usize + 1) as *const _
                  } else {
                      self.start.offset(1)
                  };
                  Some(result)
              }
          }
      }
  
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) {
          let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
          let len = (self.end as usize - self.start as usize)
                    / if elem_size == 0 { 1 } else { elem_size };
          (len, Some(len))
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> DoubleEndedIterator for RawValIter<T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  self.end = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                      (self.end as usize - 1) as *const _
                  } else {
                      self.end.offset(-1)
                  };
                  Some(ptr::read(self.end))
              }
          }
      }
  }

Final Code

#![feature(unique)]
  #![feature(alloc, heap_api)]
  
  extern crate alloc;
  
  use std::ptr::{Unique, self};
  use std::mem;
  use std::ops::{Deref, DerefMut};
  use std::marker::PhantomData;
  
  use alloc::heap;
  
  struct RawVec<T> {
      ptr: Unique<T>,
      cap: usize,
  }
  
  impl<T> RawVec<T> {
      fn new() -> Self {
          unsafe {
              // !0 is usize::MAX. This branch should be stripped at compile time.
              let cap = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 { !0 } else { 0 };
  
              // heap::EMPTY doubles as "unallocated" and "zero-sized allocation"
              RawVec { ptr: Unique::new(heap::EMPTY as *mut T), cap: cap }
          }
      }
  
      fn grow(&mut self) {
          unsafe {
              let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
  
              // since we set the capacity to usize::MAX when elem_size is
              // 0, getting to here necessarily means the Vec is overfull.
              assert!(elem_size != 0, "capacity overflow");
  
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
  
              let (new_cap, ptr) = if self.cap == 0 {
                  let ptr = heap::allocate(elem_size, align);
                  (1, ptr)
              } else {
                  let new_cap = 2 * self.cap;
                  let ptr = heap::reallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _,
                                              self.cap * elem_size,
                                              new_cap * elem_size,
                                              align);
                  (new_cap, ptr)
              };
  
              // If allocate or reallocate fail, we'll get `null` back
              if ptr.is_null() { oom() }
  
              self.ptr = Unique::new(ptr as *mut _);
              self.cap = new_cap;
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for RawVec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
          if self.cap != 0 && elem_size != 0 {
              let align = mem::align_of::<T>();
  
              let num_bytes = elem_size * self.cap;
              unsafe {
                  heap::deallocate(*self.ptr as *mut _, num_bytes, align);
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  pub struct Vec<T> {
      buf: RawVec<T>,
      len: usize,
  }
  
  impl<T> Vec<T> {
      fn ptr(&self) -> *mut T { *self.buf.ptr }
  
      fn cap(&self) -> usize { self.buf.cap }
  
      pub fn new() -> Self {
          Vec { buf: RawVec::new(), len: 0 }
      }
      pub fn push(&mut self, elem: T) {
          if self.len == self.cap() { self.buf.grow(); }
  
          unsafe {
              ptr::write(self.ptr().offset(self.len as isize), elem);
          }
  
          // Can't fail, we'll OOM first.
          self.len += 1;
      }
  
      pub fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.len == 0 {
              None
          } else {
              self.len -= 1;
              unsafe {
                  Some(ptr::read(self.ptr().offset(self.len as isize)))
              }
          }
      }
  
      pub fn insert(&mut self, index: usize, elem: T) {
          assert!(index <= self.len, "index out of bounds");
          if self.cap() == self.len { self.buf.grow(); }
  
          unsafe {
              if index < self.len {
                  ptr::copy(self.ptr().offset(index as isize),
                            self.ptr().offset(index as isize + 1),
                            self.len - index);
              }
              ptr::write(self.ptr().offset(index as isize), elem);
              self.len += 1;
          }
      }
  
      pub fn remove(&mut self, index: usize) -> T {
          assert!(index < self.len, "index out of bounds");
          unsafe {
              self.len -= 1;
              let result = ptr::read(self.ptr().offset(index as isize));
              ptr::copy(self.ptr().offset(index as isize + 1),
                        self.ptr().offset(index as isize),
                        self.len - index);
              result
          }
      }
  
      pub fn into_iter(self) -> IntoIter<T> {
          unsafe {
              let iter = RawValIter::new(&self);
              let buf = ptr::read(&self.buf);
              mem::forget(self);
  
              IntoIter {
                  iter: iter,
                  _buf: buf,
              }
          }
      }
  
      pub fn drain(&mut self) -> Drain<T> {
          unsafe {
              let iter = RawValIter::new(&self);
  
              // this is a mem::forget safety thing. If Drain is forgotten, we just
              // leak the whole Vec's contents. Also we need to do this *eventually*
              // anyway, so why not do it now?
              self.len = 0;
  
              Drain {
                  iter: iter,
                  vec: PhantomData,
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for Vec<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          while let Some(_) = self.pop() {}
          // allocation is handled by RawVec
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Deref for Vec<T> {
      type Target = [T];
      fn deref(&self) -> &[T] {
          unsafe {
              ::std::slice::from_raw_parts(self.ptr(), self.len)
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> DerefMut for Vec<T> {
      fn deref_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [T] {
          unsafe {
              ::std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut(self.ptr(), self.len)
          }
      }
  }
  
  
  
  
  
  struct RawValIter<T> {
      start: *const T,
      end: *const T,
  }
  
  impl<T> RawValIter<T> {
      unsafe fn new(slice: &[T]) -> Self {
          RawValIter {
              start: slice.as_ptr(),
              end: if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                  ((slice.as_ptr() as usize) + slice.len()) as *const _
              } else if slice.len() == 0 {
                  slice.as_ptr()
              } else {
                  slice.as_ptr().offset(slice.len() as isize)
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> Iterator for RawValIter<T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  let result = ptr::read(self.start);
                  self.start = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                      (self.start as usize + 1) as *const _
                  } else {
                      self.start.offset(1)
                  };
                  Some(result)
              }
          }
      }
  
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) {
          let elem_size = mem::size_of::<T>();
          let len = (self.end as usize - self.start as usize)
                    / if elem_size == 0 { 1 } else { elem_size };
          (len, Some(len))
      }
  }
  
  impl<T> DoubleEndedIterator for RawValIter<T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> {
          if self.start == self.end {
              None
          } else {
              unsafe {
                  self.end = if mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
                      (self.end as usize - 1) as *const _
                  } else {
                      self.end.offset(-1)
                  };
                  Some(ptr::read(self.end))
              }
          }
      }
  }
  
  
  
  
  pub struct IntoIter<T> {
      _buf: RawVec<T>, // we don't actually care about this. Just need it to live.
      iter: RawValIter<T>,
  }
  
  impl<T> Iterator for IntoIter<T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next() }
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) { self.iter.size_hint() }
  }
  
  impl<T> DoubleEndedIterator for IntoIter<T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next_back() }
  }
  
  impl<T> Drop for IntoIter<T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          for _ in &mut *self {}
      }
  }
  
  
  
  
  pub struct Drain<'a, T: 'a> {
      vec: PhantomData<&'a mut Vec<T>>,
      iter: RawValIter<T>,
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Iterator for Drain<'a, T> {
      type Item = T;
      fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next_back() }
      fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) { self.iter.size_hint() }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for Drain<'a, T> {
      fn next_back(&mut self) -> Option<T> { self.iter.next_back() }
  }
  
  impl<'a, T> Drop for Drain<'a, T> {
      fn drop(&mut self) {
          // pre-drain the iter
          for _ in &mut self.iter {}
      }
  }
  
  /// Abort the process, we're out of memory!
  ///
  /// In practice this is probably dead code on most OSes
  fn oom() {
      ::std::process::exit(-9999);
  }