---
title: "Why even unused data needs to be valid"
categories: rust
+forum: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-even-unused-data-needs-to-be-valid/12734
---
The Rust compiler has a few assumptions that it makes about the behavior of all code.
but authors of `unsafe` code are themselves responsible for upholding these requirements.
Those assumptions are [listed in the Rust reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html).
-The one that seems to be most surprising to many people is the clause which says that unsafe code may not *produce* "[...] an invalid value, even in private fields and locals".
+The one that seems to be most surprising to many people is the clause which says that Rust code may not *produce* "[...] an invalid value, even in private fields and locals".
The reference goes on to explain that "*producing* a value happens any time a value is assigned to or read from a place, passed to a function/primitive operation or returned from a function/primitive operation".
In other words, even just *constructing*, for example, an invalid `bool`, is Undefined Behavior---no matter whether that `bool` is ever actually "used" by the program.
The purpose of this post is to explain why that rule is so strict.
To support inlining and outlining, we also do not want the function boundary to be relevant, which ultimately leads us to the rule that Rust requires today: whenever data of a given type is *produced* anywhere, the data needs to be valid for that type.
I hope this post was helpful in explaining why Undefined Behavior in Rust is defined the way it is.
-As usual, if you have any comments or questions, let me know in the forums.
+As usual, if you have any comments or questions, let me know in the [forums](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/why-even-unused-data-needs-to-be-valid/12734).