use std::mem;
use std::marker::PhantomData;
-//@ As we saw, the rules Rust imposes to ensure memory safety can get us pretty far. A surprising amount of programming patterns
+//@ As we saw, the rules Rust imposes to ensure memory safety can get us pretty far. A large amount of programming patterns
//@ can be written within safe Rust, and, more importantly, library code like iterators or threads can make
//@ use of the type system to ensure some level of correctness beyond basic memory safety.
//@
//@ will be cases where it may be possible to satisfy the compiler, but only at the cost of some run-time overhead,
//@ as we saw with `RefCell` - overhead which may not be acceptable. In such a situation, it is possible to
//@ use *unsafe* Rust: That's a part of the language that is *known* to open the gate to invalid pointer access
-//@ and all other sorts of memory safety. It is typically disabled, guarded by the keyword `unsafe`. Of course,
-//@ `unsafe` also means "Here Be Dragons": You are on your own now.
-//@
+//@ and all other sorts of memory safety. Of course, `unsafe` also means "Here Be Dragons": You are on your own now. <br/>
//@ The goal in these cases is to confine unsafety to the local module. Types like `Rc` and `Vec` are implemented
//@ using unsafe Rust, but *using* them as we did is (believed to be) perfectly safe.
//@
//@ ## Unsafe Code
//@ As an example, let us write a doubly-linked list. Clearly, such a data-structure involves aliasing and mutation:
-//@ Every node in the list is pointed to by its left and right neighbor, but still we will want to modify the nodes
-//@ (either to change the value at that place, or to insert/delete nodes). We could now try some clever combination of
-//@ `Rc` and `RefCell`, but this would end up being quite annoying - and it would incur some over-head. For a low-level
-//@ data-structure like a doubly-linked list, it makes sense to implement an efficient version *once*, that is unsafe
-//@ internally, but that can be used without any risk by safe client code.
+//@ Every node in the list is pointed to by its left and right neighbor, but still we will want to modify the nodes. We
+//@ could now try some clever combination of `Rc` and `RefCell`, but this would end up being quite annoying - and it would
+//@ incur some overhead. For a low-level data-structure like a doubly-linked list, it makes sense to implement an efficient
+//@ version once, that is unsafe internally, but that can be used without any risk by safe client code.
//@ As usually, we start by defining the types. Everything is parameterized by the type `T` of the data stored in the list.
// A node of the list consists of the data, and two node pointers for the predecessor and successor.
data: T,
}
// A node pointer is a *mutable raw pointer* to a node.
-//@ Raw pointers (`*mut T` and `*const T`) are the Rust equivalent of pointers in C. Unlike borrows, they do not come with
+//@ Raw pointers (`*mut T` and `*const T`) are the Rust equivalent of pointers in C. Unlike references, they do not come with
//@ any guarantees: Raw pointers can be null, or they can point to garbage. They don't have a lifetime, either.
type NodePtr<T> = *mut Node<T>;
// will own data of type `T`.
//@ The type `PhantomData<T>` does not actually store anything in memory - it has size zero. However, logically,
//@ Rust will consider a `T` to be present. In this case, Rust knows that data of type `T` may be dropped
-//@ whenever a `LinkedList<T>` is dropped. The checks involving destructors are pretty subtle, so it's always
-//@ a good idea to provide such extra information. In safe Rust, this can all be done automatically, but here,
-//@ we just have a `*mut Node<T>`, which Rust does not consider as actually owning the data it points to.
+//@ whenever a `LinkedList<T>` is dropped. Dropping has a lot of subtle checks to it, making sure that things can't go
+//@ wrong. For this to work, Rust needs to know which types could potentially be dropped. In safe Rust, this can all be inferred
+//@ automatically, but here, we just have a `*mut Node<T>`, and we need to tell Rust that we actually own such data and will drop it.
+//@ (For more of the glory details, see [this RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0769-sound-generic-drop.md).)
pub struct LinkedList<T> {
first: NodePtr<T>,
last: NodePtr<T>,
_marker: PhantomData<T>,
}
-//@ Before we get to the actual linked-list methods, we write two short helper functions converting between
-//@ mutable raw pointers, and owned pointers (aka `Box`). Both employ `mem::transmute`, which is Rust's
-//@ `reinterpret_cast`: It can convert anything to anything, by just re-interpreting the bytes. Clearly,
-//@ that's an unsafe operation and must only be used with great care. If at all possible, its use should be avoided. <br/>
+//@ Before we get to the actual linked-list methods, we write two short helper functions converting between mutable raw pointers,
+//@ and boxed data. Both employ `mem::transmute`, which can convert anything to anything, by just re-interpreting the bytes.
+//@ Clearly, that's an unsafe operation and must only be used with great care - or even better, not at all. Seriously.
+//@ If at all possible, you should never use `transmute`. <br/>
//@ We are making the assumption here that a `Box` and a raw pointer have the same representation in memory. In the future,
-//@ Rust will [provide](http://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/alloc/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.from_raw) such [operations](http://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/alloc/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.into_raw) in the standard library, but the exact API is still being fleshed out.
+//@ Rust will [provide](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/alloc/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.from_raw) such [operations](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/alloc/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.into_raw) in the standard library, but the exact API is still being fleshed out.
//@ We declare `raw_into_box` to be an `unsafe` function, telling Rust that calling this function is not generally safe.
-//@ The caller will have to ensure that `r` is a valid pointer, and that nobody else has a pointer to this data.
+//@ This grants us the unsafe powers for the body of the function: We can dereference raw pointers, and - most importantly - we
+//@ can call unsafe functions. (The other unsafe powers won't be relevant here. Go read [The Rustonomicon](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nomicon/)
+//@ if you want to learn all about this, but be warned - That Way Lies Madness.) <br/>
+//@ Here, the caller will have to ensure that `r` is a valid pointer, and that nobody else has a pointer to this data.
unsafe fn raw_into_box<T>(r: *mut T) -> Box<T> {
mem::transmute(r)
}
-//@ The case is slightly different for `box_into_raw`: Converting a `Box` to a raw pointer is always safe. I just drops some
-//@ information. Hence we keep the function itself safe, and use an *unsafe block* within the function. This is an (unchecked)
-//@ promise to the Rust compiler, saying that a safe invocation of `box_into_raw` cannot go wrong.
+//@ The case is slightly different for `box_into_raw`: Converting a `Box` to a raw pointer is always safe. It just drops some information.
+//@ Hence we keep the function itself safe, and use an *unsafe block* within the function. This is an (unchecked) promise to the Rust
+//@ compiler, saying that a safe invocation of `box_into_raw` cannot go wrong. We also have the unsafe powers in the unsafe block.
fn box_into_raw<T>(b: Box<T>) -> *mut T {
unsafe { mem::transmute(b) }
}
// This function adds a new node to the end of the list.
pub fn push_back(&mut self, t: T) {
// Create the new node, and make it a raw pointer.
- //@ Calling `box_into_raw` gives up ownership of the box, which is crucial: We don't want the
- //@ memory that it points to to be deallocated!
+ //@ Calling `box_into_raw` gives up ownership of the box, which is crucial: We don't want the memory that it points to to be deallocated!
let new = Box::new( Node { data: t, next: ptr::null_mut(), prev: self.last } );
let new = box_into_raw(new);
- // Update other points to this node.
+ // Update other pointers to this node.
if self.last.is_null() {
debug_assert!(self.first.is_null());
// The list is currently empty, so we have to update the head pointer.
// Next, we are going to provide an iterator.
//@ This function just creates an instance of `IterMut`, the iterator type which does the actual work.
- pub fn iter_mut(&self) -> IterMut<T> {
+ pub fn iter_mut(&mut self) -> IterMut<T> {
IterMut { next: self.first, _marker: PhantomData }
}
}
//@ that it is going to visit. However, how do we make sure that this pointer remains valid? We have to
//@ get this right ourselves, as we left the safe realms of borrowing and ownership. Remember that the
//@ key ingredient for iterator safety was to tie the lifetime of the iterator to the lifetime of the
-//@ borrow used for `iter_mut`. We will thus give `IterMut` two parameters: A type parameter specifying
+//@ reference used for `iter_mut`. We will thus give `IterMut` two parameters: A type parameter specifying
//@ the type of the data, and a lifetime parameter specifying for how long the list was borrowed to the
//@ iterator.
//@ the data in the list lives at least as long as the iterator: If you drop the `T: 'a`, Rust will tell
//@ you to add it back. And secondly, Rust will complain if `'a` is not actually used in the struct.
//@ It doesn't know what it is supposed to do with that lifetime. So we use `PhantomData` again to tell
-//@ it that in terms of ownership, this type actually (mutably) borrows a linked list. This has no
+//@ it that in terms of ownership, this type actually (uniquely) borrows a linked list. This has no
//@ operational effect, but it means that Rust can deduce the intent we had when adding that
//@ seemingly useless lifetime parameter.
pub struct IterMut<'a, T> where T: 'a {
if self.next.is_null() {
None
} else {
- // Otherwise, we can convert the next pointer to a borrow, get a borrow to the data
+ // Otherwise, we can convert the next pointer to a reference, get a reference to the data
// and update the iterator.
let next = unsafe { &mut *self.next };
let ret = &mut next.data;
//@ In `next` above, we made crucial use of the assumption that `self.next` is either null or a valid pointer.
//@ This only works because if someone tries to delete elements from a list during iteration, we know that the borrow checker
//@ will catch them: If they call `next`, the lifetime `'a` we artificially added to the iterator has to still be
-//@ active, which means the mutable borrow passed to `iter_mut` is still active, which means nobody can delete
+//@ active, which means the mutable reference passed to `iter_mut` is still active, which means nobody can delete
//@ anything from the list. In other words, we make use of the expressive type system of Rust, decorating
//@ our own unsafe implementation with just enough information so that Rust can check *uses* of the linked-list.
//@ If the type system were weaker, we could not write a linked-list like the above with a safe interface!
-// **Exercise 16.2**: Add a method `iter` and a type `Iter` providing iteration for shared borrows.
+// **Exercise 16.2**: Add a method `iter` and a type `Iter` providing iteration for shared references.
// Add testcases for both kinds of iterators.
// ## `Drop`
//@ of `LinkedList`.
impl<T> Drop for LinkedList<T> {
// The destructor itself is a method which takes `self` in mutably borrowed form. It cannot own `self`, because then
- // the destructor of `self` would be called at the end pf the function, resulting in endless recursion...
+ // the destructor of `self` would be called at the end of the function, resulting in endless recursion.
fn drop(&mut self) {
let mut cur_ptr = self.first;
while !cur_ptr.is_null() {
//@ extensions here and there. The [index](main.html) contains some more links to additional resources you may find useful.
//@ With that, there's only one thing left to say: Happy Rust Hacking!
-//@ [index](main.html) | [previous](part15.html) | next
+//@ [index](main.html) | [previous](part15.html) | [raw source](workspace/src/part16.rs) | next
projects / rust-101.git / blobdiff