nomicon/repr-rust.md

% repr(Rust)

Rust gives you the following ways to lay out composite data:

* structs (named product types)
* tuples (anonymous product types)
* arrays (homogeneous product types)
* enums (named sum types -- tagged unions)

An enum is said to be *C-like* if none of its variants have associated data.

For all these, individual fields are aligned to their preferred alignment. For
primitives this is usually equal to their size. For instance, a u32 will be
aligned to a multiple of 32 bits, and a u16 will be aligned to a multiple of 16
bits. Composite structures will have a preferred alignment equal to the maximum
of their fields' preferred alignment, and a size equal to a multiple of their
preferred alignment. This ensures that arrays of T can be correctly iterated
by offsetting by their size. So for instance,

```rust
struct A {
    a: u8,
    c: u32,
    b: u16,
}
```

will have a size that is a multiple of 32-bits, and 32-bit alignment.

There is *no indirection* for these types; all data is stored contiguously as you would
expect in C. However with the exception of arrays (which are densely packed and
in-order), the layout of data is not by default specified in Rust. Given the two
following struct definitions:

```rust
struct A {
    a: i32,
    b: u64,
}

struct B {
    x: i32,
    b: u64,
}
```

Rust *does* guarantee that two instances of A have their data laid out in exactly
the same way. However Rust *does not* guarantee that an instance of A has the same
field ordering or padding as an instance of B (in practice there's no *particular*
reason why they wouldn't, other than that its not currently guaranteed).

With A and B as written, this is basically nonsensical, but several other features
of Rust make it desirable for the language to play with data layout in complex ways.

For instance, consider this struct:

```rust
struct Foo<T, U> {
    count: u16,
    data1: T,
    data2: U,
}
```

Now consider the monomorphizations of `Foo<u32, u16>` and `Foo<u16, u32>`. If Rust lays out the
fields in the order specified, we expect it to *pad* the values in the struct to satisfy
their *alignment* requirements. So if Rust didn't reorder fields, we would expect Rust to
produce the following:

```rust
struct Foo<u16, u32> {
    count: u16,
    data1: u16,
    data2: u32,
}

struct Foo<u32, u16> {
    count: u16,
    _pad1: u16,
    data1: u32,
    data2: u16,
    _pad2: u16,
}
```

The latter case quite simply wastes space. An optimal use of space therefore requires
different monomorphizations to have *different field orderings*.

**Note: this is a hypothetical optimization that is not yet implemented in Rust 1.0**

Enums make this consideration even more complicated. Naively, an enum such as:

```rust
enum Foo {
    A(u32),
    B(u64),
    C(u8),
}
```

would be laid out as:

```rust
struct FooRepr {
    data: u64, // this is *really* either a u64, u32, or u8 based on `tag`
    tag: u8, // 0 = A, 1 = B, 2 = C
}
```

And indeed this is approximately how it would be laid out in general
(modulo the size and position of `tag`). However there are several cases where
such a representation is ineffiecient. The classic case of this is Rust's
"null pointer optimization". Given a pointer that is known to not be null
(e.g. `&u32`), an enum can *store* a discriminant bit *inside* the pointer
by using null as a special value. The net result is that
`size_of::<Option<&T>>() == size_of::<&T>()`

There are many types in Rust that are, or contain, "not null" pointers such as
`Box<T>`, `Vec<T>`, `String`, `&T`, and `&mut T`. Similarly, one can imagine
nested enums pooling their tags into a single descriminant, as they are by
definition known to have a limited range of valid values. In principle enums can
use fairly elaborate algorithms to cache bits throughout nested types with
special constrained representations. As such it is *especially* desirable that
we leave enum layout unspecified today.