use std::mem;
use std::marker::PhantomData;
-//@ 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.
+//@ 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.
//@
-//@ However, there will still be programs that one cannot write in accordance with the borrow checker. And there
-//@ 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. 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.
+//@ However, there will still be programs that one cannot write in accordance with the borrow
+//@ checker. And there 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. 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. 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.
+//@ 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. 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.
struct Node<T> {
next: NodePtr<T>,
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
-//@ any guarantees: Raw pointers can be null, or they can point to garbage. They don't have a lifetime, either.
+//@ 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>;
-// The linked list itself stores pointers to the first and the last node. In addition, we tell Rust that this type
-// 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. 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).)
+// The linked list itself stores pointers to the first and the last node. In addition, we tell Rust
+// that this type 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. 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 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.
-
-//@ We declare `raw_into_box` to be an `unsafe` function, telling Rust that calling this function is not generally safe.
-//@ 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.
+//@ 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](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. 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. 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.
+//@ 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) }
}
impl<T> LinkedList<T> {
- // A new linked list just contains null pointers. `PhantomData` is how we construct any `PhantomData<T>`.
+ // A new linked list just contains null pointers. `PhantomData` is how we construct any
+ // `PhantomData<T>`.
pub fn new() -> Self {
LinkedList { first: ptr::null_mut(), last: ptr::null_mut(), _marker: PhantomData }
}
// 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.
} else {
debug_assert!(!self.first.is_null());
// We have to update the `next` pointer of the tail node.
- //@ Since Rust does not know that a raw pointer actually points to anything, dereferencing such a pointer is
- //@ an unsafe operation. So this unsafe block promises that the pointer will actually be valid.
+ //@ Since Rust does not know that a raw pointer actually points to anything,
+ //@ dereferencing such a pointer is an unsafe operation. So this unsafe block promises
+ //@ that the pointer will actually be valid.
unsafe { (*self.last).next = new; } /*@*/
}
// Make this the last node.
self.last = new;
}
- // **Exercise 16.1**: Add some more operations to `LinkedList`: `pop_back`, `push_front` and `pop_front`.
- // Add testcases for `push_back` and all of your functions. The `pop` functions should take `&mut self`
- // and return `Option<T>`.
+ // **Exercise 16.1**: Add some more operations to `LinkedList`: `pop_back`, `push_front` and
+ // `pop_front`. Add testcases for `push_back` and all of your functions. The `pop` functions
+ // should take `&mut self` and return `Option<T>`.
// 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> {
+ //@ This function just creates an instance of `IterMut`, the iterator type which does the actual
+ //@ work.
+ pub fn iter_mut(&mut self) -> IterMut<T> {
IterMut { next: self.first, _marker: PhantomData }
}
}
-//@ What does the iterator need to store? Strictly speaking, all it needs is the pointer to the next node
-//@ 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
-//@ the type of the data, and a lifetime parameter specifying for how long the list was borrowed to the
-//@ iterator.
-
-//@ For Rust to accept the type, we have to add two more annotations. First of all, we have to ensure that
-//@ 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
-//@ operational effect, but it means that Rust can deduce the intent we had when adding that
-//@ seemingly useless lifetime parameter.
+//@ What does the iterator need to store? Strictly speaking, all it needs is the pointer to the
+//@ next node 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 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.
+
+//@ For Rust to accept the type, we have to add two more annotations. First of all, we have to
+//@ ensure that 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 (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 {
next: NodePtr<T>,
_marker: PhantomData<&'a mut LinkedList<T>>,
}
-//@ When implementing `Iterator` for `IterMut`, the fact that we have the lifetime `'a` around immediately
-//@ pays of: We would not even be able to write down the type `Item` without that lifetime.
+//@ When implementing `Iterator` for `IterMut`, the fact that we have the lifetime `'a` around
+//@ immediately pays of: We would not even be able to write down the type `Item` without that
+//@ lifetime.
impl<'a, T> Iterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
type Item = &'a mut T;
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
-//@ 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!
+//@ 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
+//@ 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.
-// Add testcases for both kinds of iterators.
+// **Exercise 16.2**: Add a method `iter` and a type `Iter` providing iteration for shared
+// references. Add testcases for both kinds of iterators.
// ## `Drop`
-//@ The linked list we wrote is already working quite nicely, but there is one problem: When the list is dropped,
-//@ nobody bothers to deallocate the remaining nodes. Even worse, if `T` itself has a destructor that needs to
-//@ clean up, it is not called for the element remaining in the list. We need to take care of that ourselves.
-
-//@ In Rust, adding a destructor for a type is done by implementing the `Drop` trait. This is a very special trait.
-//@ It can only be implemented for *nominal types*, i.e., you cannot implement `Drop` for `&mut T`. You also cannot
-//@ restrict the type and lifetime parameters further than the type does - the `Drop` implementation has to apply to *all* instances
-//@ of `LinkedList`.
+//@ The linked list we wrote is already working quite nicely, but there is one problem: When the
+//@ list is dropped, nobody bothers to deallocate the remaining nodes. Even worse, if `T` itself
+//@ has a destructor that needs to clean up, it is not called for the element remaining in the
+//@ list. We need to take care of that ourselves.
+
+//@ In Rust, adding a destructor for a type is done by implementing the `Drop` trait. This is a
+//@ very special trait. It can only be implemented for *nominal types*, i.e., you cannot implement
+//@ `Drop` for `&mut T`. You also cannot restrict the type and lifetime parameters further than the
+//@ type does - the `Drop` implementation has to apply to *all* instances 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 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 of the function,
+ // resulting in endless recursion.
fn drop(&mut self) {
let mut cur_ptr = self.first;
while !cur_ptr.is_null() {
- // In the destructor, we just iterate over the entire list, successively obtaining ownership
- // (`Box`) of every node. When the box is dropped, it will call the destructor on `data` if
- // necessary, and subsequently free the node on the heap.
+ // In the destructor, we just iterate over the entire list, successively obtaining
+ // ownership (`Box`) of every node. When the box is dropped, it will call the destructor
+ // on `data` if necessary, and subsequently free the node on the heap.
//@ We call `drop` explicitly here just for documentation purposes.
let cur = unsafe { raw_into_box(cur_ptr) };
cur_ptr = cur.next;
}
// ## The End
-//@ Congratulations! You completed Rust-101. This was the last part of the course. I hope you enjoyed it.
-//@ If you have feedback or want to contribute yourself, please head to the [Rust-101](https://www.ralfj.de/projects/rust-101/) website
-//@ fur further information. The entire course is open-source (under [CC-BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)).
+//@ Congratulations! You completed Rust-101. This was the last part of the course. I hope you
+//@ enjoyed it. If you have feedback or want to contribute yourself, please head to the
+//@ [Rust-101](https://www.ralfj.de/projects/rust-101/) website fur further information. The entire
+//@ course is open-source (under [CC-BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)).
//@
-//@ If you want to do more, the examples you saw in this course provide lots of playground for coming up with your own little
-//@ extensions here and there. The [index](main.html) contains some more links to additional resources you may find useful.
+//@ If you want to do more, the examples you saw in this course provide lots of playground for
+//@ coming up with your own little 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