Over the Thanksgiving break I’ve been devoting a lot of time to thinking about DST and Rust’s approach to vector and object types. As before, this is very much still churning in my mind so I’m just going to toss out some semi-structured thoughts.

Brief recap

Treating vectors like any other container. Some time back, I wrote up a post about how we could treat vectors like any other container, which would (to some extent) avoid the need for DST.

Dynamically sized types (DST). In Part 1 of the series, I sketched out how “Dynamically Sized Types” might work. In that scheme, [T] is interpreted as an existential type like exists N. [T, ..N] , and Trait is interpreted as exists T:Trait. T . The type system ensures that DSTs always appear behind one of the builtin pointer types, and those pointer types become fat pointers:

Advantage. Impls for objects and vectors work really well.

Impls for objects and vectors work really well. Disadvantage. Hard to square with user-defined smart pointers like RC<[int]> . The problem is worse than I presented in that post, I’ll elaborate a bit more.

Statically sized types (SST). In Part 2 of the series, I sketched out an alternative scheme that I later dubbed “Statically Sized Types”. In this scheme, in some ways similar to today, [T] and Trait are not themselves types, but rather shorthands for existential types where the exists qualifier is moved outside the smart pointer. For example, ~[T] becomes exists N. ~[T, ..N] . The scheme does not involve fat pointers; rather, the existential type carries the length, and the thin pointer is embedded within the existential type.

Advantage. It is easy to create a type like RC<[int]> from an existing RC<[int, ..N]> (and, similarly, an RC<Trait> from an existing RC<T> ).

It is easy to create a type like from an existing (and, similarly, an from an existing ). Disadvantage. Incompatible with monomorphization except via virtual calls. I described part of the problem in Part 3 of the series. I’ll elaborate a bit more here.

Where does that leave us?

So, basically, we are left with two flawed schemes. In this post I just want to elaborate on some of the thoughts I had over Thanksgiving. Roughly speaking they are three:

DST and smart pointer interaction is even less smooth than I thought, but workable for RC at least. SSTs, vectors, and smart pointers are just plain unworkable. SSTs, objects, and smart pointers work out reasonable well.

At the end, I suggest two plausible solutions that seem workable to me at this point:

DST, after elaborating more examples to see whether they work;

Treat vectors like any other container combined with SST for object types.

Making DST work with RC requires some contortions

In part 1, I gave the example of how we could adapt an RC type to use smart pointers. I defined the RC type as followings:

struct RC<T> { priv data: *T, priv ref_count: uint, }

Unfortunately, as Partick pointed out on reddit, this simply doesn’t work. The ref count needs to be shared amongst all clones of the RC pointer. Embarassing. Anyway, the correct definition for RC is more like the following:

struct RCData<T> { priv ref_count: uint, priv t: T, } struct RC<T> { priv data: *mut RCData<T> }

In order to be sure that I’m not forgetting details, permit me to sketch out roughly how an RC implementation would look in actual code. To start, here is the code to allocate a new RC pointer, based on an initial value. I’m going to allocate the memory using a direct call to malloc, both so as to express the “maximally customized” case and because this will be necessary later on.

impl<T> RC<T> { pub fn new(t: T) -> RC<T> { unsafe { let data: *mut RCData<T> = transmute(malloc(sizeof::<RCData<T>>())); // Intrinsic `init` initializes memory that contains // uninitialized data to begin with: init(&mut *data, RCData { ref_count: 1, t: t }); RC { data: data } } } }

One could dereference and clone an RC pointer as follows:

impl<T> Deref for RC<T> { fn deref<'a>(&'a self) -> &'a T { unsafe { &self.data.t } } } impl<T> Clone for RC<T> { fn clone(&self) -> RC<T> { unsafe { self.data.ref_count += 1; *self } } }

The destructor for an RC<T> would be written:

impl<T> Drop for RC<T> { fn drop(&mut self) { unsafe { let rc = self.data.ref_count; if rc > 1 { self.data.ref_count = rc - 1; return; } // Intrinsic `drop` that frees memory: drop::<T>(&mut self.data.t); free(self.data); } } }

OK, everything seems reasonable. Only one problem – this whole scheme is incompatible with DST! To see why, consider again the type RCData :

struct RCData<T> { priv ref_count: uint, priv t: T, }

And, as you can see here, it references T by itself, without using any kind of pointer indirection. But for T to be unsized, it must always appear behind a *T or something similar. This is precisely the example that I showed in the section Limitation: DSTs much appear behind a pointer in Part 1.

Now, it turns out we could rewrite RC to make it DST compatible. The idea is to use the standard trick of storing the reference count at a negative offset. Let’s write up an RC1 type that shows what I mean:

struct RC1Header { priv ref_count: uint, } struct RC1<unsized T> { priv data: *mut T }

In this scheme, we have a pointer data directly to a *mut T . This means that the compiler could “coerce” an RC1<[int, ..3]> into a RC1<[int]> by expanding data into a fat pointer. It does have the side-effect of makeing the code to allocate an RC and manipulate its ref count a bit more complex, since more pointer arithmetic is involved.

Here is the code to allocate an RC1 instance. Hopefully it’s fairly clear. One interesting aspect is that, for allocation, we don’t need to accept unsized types T , since at allocation time the full type is known. However, later on, we may “forget” the precise type of T and convert it into an unsized, existential type like [U] or Trait . In that case, we still need to be able to find the reference count, even without knowing the size or alignment of T . Therefore, we must be conservative and do our calculations based on the maximal possible alignment requirement for the platform.

static MAXIMAL_ALIGNMENT: uint = 16; // platform specific impl<T> RC1<T> { pub fn new(t: T) -> RC1<T> { unsafe { // We need to be able to compute size of header // without knowing T, so be conservative: assert!(MAXIMAL_ALIGNMENT > sizeof::<uint>()); let header_size = MAXIMAL_ALIGNMENT; // Allocate memory for header + data. let size = header_size + sizeof::<T>(); let alloc: *mut u8 = malloc(size) as *mut u8; // Initialize the reference count. let header: *mut RC1Header = alloc as *mut RC1Header; *ref_count = 1; // Initialize the data itself. let data: *mut T = (alloc + header_size) as *mut T; init(&mut *data, t); // Construct the GC value. RC1 { data: data } } } }

Here is a helper to obtain a pointer to the ref count from an RC1 instance. Note that it is carefully written to be compatible with an unsized T .

impl<unsized T> RC1<T> { fn header(&self) -> *mut RC1Header { let data: *mut u8 = self.data as *mut u8; let header_size = MAXIMAL_ALIGNMENT; (data - MAXIMAL_ALIGNMENT) as *mut uint } }

Based on this we can rewrite deref, clone, and drop in a fairly obvious way. All of them are compatible with unsized types.

impl<unsized T> Deref for RC1<T> { fn deref<'a>(&'a self) -> &'a T { unsafe { &*self.data } } } impl<unsized T> Clone for RC1<T> { fn clone(&self) -> RC<T> { unsafe { self.header().ref_count += 1; *self } } } impl<unsized T> Drop for RC1<T> { fn drop(&mut self) { unsafe { let rc = self.header().ref_count; if rc > 1 { self.header().ref_count = rc - 1; return; } // Intrinsic `drop` that frees memory: drop::<T>(&mut *self.data); free(self.data); } } }

OK, so we can see that DST does permit RC<[int]> , but only barely. It makes me nervous. Is this a general enough solution to scale to future smart pointers? It’s certainly not universal.

Why SST just doesn’t work with vector types.

The SST approach does not employ fat pointers in the same sense and thus is largely free of the limitations on smart pointer layout that DST imposes. But not entirely. In part 3 I described the problem of finding the correct monomorphized instance of deref() . In general, this is not possible, though in many instances the compiler could deduce that it doesn’t matter which type of pointee deref() is specialized to – I thus proposed that a solution might lie in formalizing this idea by permitting a type parameter T to be labeled erased , which would cause the compiler to guarantee that the generated code will be identical no matter what type T is instantiated with. This seems nice, but there are many complications in practice. Let me sketch them out.

First, it is rare that a type can be entirely erased, even in dereference routines. For example, consider the straight-forward RC type that I sketched out before, where the header was made explicit in the representation, rather than being stored at a negative offset. Here is the Deref routine:

impl<T> Deref for RC<T> { fn deref<'a>(&'a self) -> &'a T { unsafe { &self.data.t } } }

At first, it appears that the precise type T is irrelevant, but in fact we must know its alignment to compute the offset of the field t . This precise situation is why the alternative scheme RC1 made conservative assumptions about the alignment of t . We could address this, though, by manually annotating the alignment of the t field (something we do not yet support, but ought to in any case):

struct RCData<T> { priv ref_count: uint, #[alignment(maximum)] priv t: T, }

A deeper problem lies with the drop routine. The destructor for an RC<T> needs to do three things, and in a particular order:

Decrement ref count, returning if it is not yet zero. Drop the value of T that we encapsulate. Drop the memory we allocated.

The tricky part is that step 2 requires knowledge of T . I thought at first we might be able to finesse this problem by having the destructor run after the contained data had been freed, but that doesn’t work because in this case the data is found at the other end of an unsafe pointer, and the compiler doesn’t traverse that – and worse, we don’t always want to free the T value of an RC<T> , only if the ref count is zero.

Despite all the problems with Drop , it’s possible to imagine that we define some super hacky custom drop protocol for smart pointers that makes this work. But that’s not enough. There are other operations that make sense for RC<[T]> types beyond indexing, and they have the same problems. For example, perhaps I’d like to compare two values of type RC<[T]> for equality:

fn foo(x: RC<[int]>, y: RC<[int]>) { if x == y { ... } }

This seems reasonable, but we immediately hit the same problem: what Eq implementation should we use? Can Eq be defined in an “erased” way? Let’s not forget that Eq is currently defined only between instances of equal type. This winds up being basically the same problem as drop – we can only circumvent it by adding a bunch of specialized logic for comparing existential types.

Another problem lies in the case where the length of a vector is not statically known. The underlying assumption of all this work is that a type like ~[T] corresponds to a vector whose length was once statically known but has been forgotten. We were going to move the “dynamic length” case to a type like Vec<T> , that supports push() and so on. But the idea was that Vec<T> should be convertible to a ~[T] – frozen, if you will – once we were doing building it. And that doesn’t work at all.

Finally, even if we could, we don’t want to generate those monomorphized variants anyhow. Even if we could overcome all the above challenges, it’s still silly to have a type like RC<[int]> delegate to some specific destructor for [int, ..N] for whatever length N it happens to be. That implies we’re generating code for every length o the vector that occurs in practice. Not good, and DST wouldn’t have this problem.

OK, so I hope I’ve convinced you that SST and vector types just do not mix.

Why SST could work for object types.

You’ll note I was careful not to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Although SST doesn’t work well with vector types, I think it still has potential for object types. There are a couple of crucial differences here:

With object types, we carry a vtable, permitting us to make crucial operations – like drop – virtual calls. Object types like RC<Trait> support a much more limited set of operations: drop;

invoke methods offered by Trait .

There are many ways we could make RC<Trait> work. Here is one possible scheme that is maximally flexible and does not require the notion of erased type parameters. When you cast an RC<T> to an RC<Trait> , we pair it with a vtable. This vtable contains an entry for drop and an entry for each of the methods in Trait . These entries are setup to take an RC<T> as input and to handle the dereferencing etc themselves, delegating to a monomorphic variant specialized to T . Let me explain by example. First let’s create a simple trait:

trait Mobile { fn hit_points(&self) -> int; } struct PC { ... } impl Mobile for PC { ... } struct NPC { ... } impl Mobile for NPC { ... }

Now imagine I have a routine like:

fn interact(pc: RC<PC>, npc: RC<NPC>) { let pc_mob: RC<Mobile> = pc as RC<Mobile>; // convert to object type let npc_mob: RC<Mobile> = npc as RC<Mobile>; // convert to object type }

The idea would be to package up the RC<Mobile> with a vtable containing adapter routines. These routines would be auto-generated by the compiler, and would look roughly similar to:

fn RC_PC_drop(r: *RC<PC>) { drop(*r) } fn RC_PC_hit_points(r: *RC<PC>) -> uint { let pc: &PC = (*r).deref(); pc.hit_points() }

Thus, when we convert a RC<PC> to a RC<Player> , we would pair the RC pointer with a vtable consisting of RC_PC_drop and RC_PC_hit_points . There are some minor complications to work out around the various self pointer types, but that seems relatively straightforward (famous last words). Anyway, the key idea here is to specialize the vtable routines to the smart pointer type, by moving the required deref into the generated method itself. This avoids the need for us to ever invoke code in an erased fashion.

If we added the erased keyword, it could still be used to permit the reuse of these adaptor methods across distinct pointer types. But this can also be done without a special keyword as an optimization (unlike before, it’s not necessary for the type to be erased, merely helpful).

Squaring the circle

I think we could maybe make DST work, but I still worry it is too magical. It has some real advantages though so perhaps the right thing is to try and elaborate more examples of smart pointer types we anticipate and see whether they can be made to work.

Another solution is to remove vectors from the language, treat them like any other container, and use the SST approach for object types. But there are lots of micro-decisions to be made there, many of which boil down to usability things. For example, what is the meaning of the literal syntax and so on? I’ll leave those thoughts for another day.