Since the stabilization in #127679 has reached stage0, 1.82-beta, we can
start using `&raw` freely, and even the soft-deprecated `ptr::addr_of!`
and `ptr::addr_of_mut!` can stop allowing the unstable feature.
I intentionally did not change any documentation or tests, but the rest
of those macro uses are all now using `&raw const` or `&raw mut` in the
standard library.
Add new_cyclic_in for Rc and Arc
Currently, new_cyclic_in does not exist for Rc and Arc. This is an oversight according to https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/132.
This PR adds new_cyclic_in for Rc and Arc. The implementation is almost the exact same as new_cyclic with some small differences to make it allocator-specific. new_cyclic's implementation has been replaced with a call to `new_cyclic_in(data_fn, Global)`.
Remaining questions:
* ~~Is requiring Allocator to be Clone OK? According to https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/88, Allocators should be cheap to clone. I'm just hesitant to add unnecessary constraints, though I don't see an obvious workaround for this function since many called functions in new_cyclic_in expect an owned Allocator. I see Allocator.by_ref() as an option, but that doesn't work on when creating Weak { ptr: init_ptr, alloc: alloc.clone() }, because the type of Weak then becomes Weak<T, &A> which is incompatible.~~ Fixed, thank you `@zakarumych!` This PR no longer requires the allocator to be Clone.
* Currently, new_cyclic_in's documentation is almost entirely copy-pasted from new_cyclic, with minor tweaks to make it more accurate (e.g. Rc<T> -> Rc<T, A>). The example section is removed to mitigate redundancy and instead redirects to cyclic_in. Is this appropriate?
* ~~The comments in new_cyclic_in (and much of the implementation) are also copy-pasted from new_cyclic. Would it be better to make a helper method new_cyclic_in_internal that both functions call, with either Global or the custom allocator? I'm not sure if that's even possible, since the internal method would have to return Arc<T, Global> and I don't know if it's possible to "downcast" that to an Arc<T>. Maybe transmute would work here?~~ Done, thanks `@zakarumych`
* Arc::new_cyclic is #[inline], but Rc::new_cyclic is not. Which is preferred?
* nit: does it matter where in the impl block new_cyclic_in is defined?
A partial stabilization that only affects:
- AllocType<T>::new_uninit
- AllocType<T>::assume_init
- AllocType<[T]>::new_uninit_slice
- AllocType<[T]>::assume_init
where "AllocType" is Box, Rc, or Arc
- `new_zeroed` variants move to `new_zeroed_alloc`
- the `write` fn moves to `box_uninit_write`
The remainder will be stabilized in upcoming patches, as
it was decided to only stabilize `uninit*` and `assume_init`.
Add `#[must_use]` to some `into_raw*` functions.
cc #121287
r? ``@cuviper``
Adds `#[must_use = "losing the pointer will leak memory"]`[^1] to `Box::into_raw(_with_allocator)`, `Vec::into_raw_parts(_with_alloc)`, `String::into_raw_parts`[^2], and `rc::{Rc, Weak}::into_raw_with_allocator` (Rc's normal `into_raw` and all of `Arc`'s `into_raw*`s are already `must_use`).
Adds `#[must_use = "losing the raw <resource name may leak resources"]` to `IntoRawFd::into_raw_fd`, `IntoRawSocket::into_raw_socket`, and `IntoRawHandle::into_raw_handle`.
[^1]: "*will* leak memory" may be too-strong wording (since `Box`/`Vec`/`String`/`rc::Weak` might not have a backing allocation), but I left it as-is for simplicity and consistency.
[^2]: `String::into_raw_parts`'s `must_use` message is changed from the previous (possibly misleading) "`self` will be dropped if the result is not used".
Remove memory leaks in doctests in `core`, `alloc`, and `std`
cc `@RalfJung` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126067https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3670
Should be no actual *documentation* changes[^1], all added/modified lines in the doctests are hidden with `#`,
This PR splits the existing memory leaks in doctests in `core`, `alloc`, and `std` into two general categories:
1. "Non-focused" memory leaks that are incidental to the thing being documented, and/or are easy to remove, i.e. they are only there because preventing the leak would make the doctest less clear and/or concise.
- These doctests simply have a comment like `# // Prevent leaks for Miri.` above the added line that removes the memory leak.
- [^2]Some of these would perhaps be better as part of the public documentation part of the doctest, to clarify that a memory leak can happen if it is not otherwise mentioned explicitly in the documentation (specifically the ones in `(A)Rc::increment_strong_count(_in)`).
2. "Focused" memory leaks that are intentional and documented, and/or are possibly fragile to remove.
- These doctests have a `# // FIXME` comment above the line that removes the memory leak, with a note that once `-Zmiri-disable-leak-check` can be applied at test granularity, these tests should be "un-unleakified" and have `-Zmiri-disable-leak-check` enabled.
- Some of these are possibly fragile (e.g. unleaking the result of `Vec::leak`) and thus should definitely not be made part of the documentation.
This should be all of the leaks currently in `core` and `alloc`. I only found one leak in `std`, and it was in the first category (excluding the modules `@RalfJung` mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126067 , and reducing the number of iterations of [one test](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/std/src/sync/once_lock.rs#L49-L94) from 1000 to 10)
[^1]: assuming [^2] is not added
[^2]: backlink
Generalize `fn allocator` for Rc/Arc.
Split out from #119761
- For `Rc`/`Arc`, the existing associated `fn`s are changed to allow unsized pointees.
- For `Weak`s, new methods are added.
`````@rustbot````` label +A-allocators
This requires introducing a new internal type `RcUninit` (and
`ArcUninit`), which can own an `RcBox<T>` without requiring it to be
initialized, sized, or a slice. This is similar to `UniqueRc`, but
`UniqueRc` doesn't support the allocator parameter, and there is no
`UniqueArc`.
`UniqueRc`: support allocators and `T: ?Sized`.
Added the following (all unstable):
* Defaulted type pararameter `A: Allocator`.
* `UniqueRc::new_in()`.
* `T: ?Sized` where possible.
* `impl CoerceUnsized for UniqueRc`.
These changes are motivated by supporting the implementation of unsized `Rc::make_mut()` (PR #116113), but are also intended to be obvious generalizations of `UniqueRc` to support the things `Rc` does.
r? ``````@the8472``````
Added the following (all unstable):
* Defaulted type pararameter `A: Allocator`.
* `UniqueRc::new_in()`.
* `T: ?Sized` where possible.
* `impl CoerceUnsized for UniqueRc`.
* Drive-by doc polish: links and periods at the end of sentences.
These changes are motivated by supporting the implementation of unsized
`Rc::make_mut()` (PR #116113), but are also intended to be obvious
generalizations of `UniqueRc` to support the things `Rc` does.
Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude
(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` to Rc/Arc/Weak.
Split out from #119761
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` for `Rc`/`rc::Weak`[^1]/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`.
* Pairs with `from_raw_in` (which already exists on all 4 types).
* Name matches `Box::into_raw_with_allocator`.
* Associated fns on `Rc`/`Arc`, methods on `Weak`s.
<details> <summary>Future PR/ACP</summary>
As a follow-on to this PR, I plan to make a PR/ACP later to move `into_raw(_parts)` from `Container<_, A: Allocator>` to only `Container<_, Global>` (where `Container` = `Vec`/`Box`/`Rc`/`rc::Weak`/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`) so that users of non-`Global` allocators have to explicitly handle the allocator when using `into_raw`-like APIs.
The current behaviors of stdlib containers are inconsistent with respect to what happens to the allocator when `into_raw` is called (which does not return the allocator)
| Type | `into_raw` currently callable with | behavior of `into_raw`|
| --- | --- | --- |
| `Box` | any allocator | allocator is [dropped](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/boxed.rs.html#1060) |
| `Vec` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/vec/mod.rs.html#884) |
| `Arc`/`Rc`/`Weak` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#1487)(Arc) [(sync::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#2726) [(Rc)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#1352) [(rc::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#2993) |
In my opinion, neither implicitly dropping nor implicitly forgetting the allocator is ideal; dropping it could immediately invalidate the returned pointer, and forgetting it could unintentionally leak memory. My (to-be) proposed solution is to just forbid calling `into_raw(_parts)` on containers with non-`Global` allocators, and require calling `into_raw_with_allocator`(/`Vec::into_raw_parts_with_alloc`)
</details>
[^1]: Technically, `rc::Weak::into_raw_with_allocator` is not newly added, as it was modified and renamed from `rc::Weak::into_raw_and_alloc`.
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
* Remove A: Clone bound from Rc::assume_init, Rc::downcast, and Rc::downcast_unchecked.
* Make From<Rc<[T; N]>> for Rc<[T]> allocator-aware.
Internal changes:
* Made Arc::internal_into_inner_with_allocator method into Arc::into_inner_with_allocator associated fn.
* Add private Rc::into_inner_with_allocator (to match Arc), so other fns don't have to juggle ManuallyDrop.
Clarify/add `must_use` message for Rc/Arc/Weak::into_raw.
The current `#[must_use]` messages for `{sync,rc}::Weak::into_raw` ("`self` will be dropped if the result is not used") are misleading, as `self` is consumed and will *not* be dropped.
This PR changes their `#[must_use]` message to the same as `Arc::into_raw`'s[ current `#[must_use]` message](d573564575/library/alloc/src/sync.rs (L1482)) ("losing the pointer will leak memory"), and also adds it to `Rc::into_raw`, which is not currently `#[must_use]`.
