|
|
|
# Drop Flags
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The examples in the previous section introduce an interesting problem for Rust.
|
|
|
|
We have seen that it's possible to conditionally initialize, deinitialize, and
|
|
|
|
reinitialize locations of memory totally safely. For Copy types, this isn't
|
|
|
|
particularly notable since they're just a random pile of bits. However types
|
|
|
|
with destructors are a different story: Rust needs to know whether to call a
|
|
|
|
destructor whenever a variable is assigned to, or a variable goes out of scope.
|
|
|
|
How can it do this with conditional initialization?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this is not a problem that all assignments need worry about. In
|
|
|
|
particular, assigning through a dereference unconditionally drops, and assigning
|
|
|
|
in a `let` unconditionally doesn't drop:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
|
|
let mut x = Box::new(0); // let makes a fresh variable, so never need to drop
|
|
|
|
let y = &mut x;
|
|
|
|
*y = Box::new(1); // Deref assumes the referent is initialized, so always drops
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is only a problem when overwriting a previously initialized variable or
|
|
|
|
one of its subfields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It turns out that Rust actually tracks whether a type should be dropped or not
|
|
|
|
*at runtime*. As a variable becomes initialized and uninitialized, a *drop flag*
|
|
|
|
for that variable is toggled. When a variable might need to be dropped, this
|
|
|
|
flag is evaluated to determine if it should be dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, it is often the case that a value's initialization state can be
|
|
|
|
statically known at every point in the program. If this is the case, then the
|
|
|
|
compiler can theoretically generate more efficient code! For instance, straight-
|
|
|
|
line code has such *static drop semantics*:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
|
|
let mut x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
|
|
|
|
let mut y = x; // y was uninit; just overwrite and make x uninit.
|
|
|
|
x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
|
|
|
|
y = x; // y was init; Drop y, overwrite it, and make x uninit!
|
|
|
|
// y goes out of scope; y was init; Drop y!
|
|
|
|
// x goes out of scope; x was uninit; do nothing.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, branched code where all branches have the same behavior with respect
|
|
|
|
to initialization has static drop semantics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
|
|
# let condition = true;
|
|
|
|
let mut x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
|
|
|
|
if condition {
|
|
|
|
drop(x) // x gets moved out; make x uninit.
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
println!("{}", x);
|
|
|
|
drop(x) // x gets moved out; make x uninit.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
|
|
|
|
// x goes out of scope; x was init; Drop x!
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However code like this *requires* runtime information to correctly Drop:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
|
|
# let condition = true;
|
|
|
|
let x;
|
|
|
|
if condition {
|
|
|
|
x = Box::new(0); // x was uninit; just overwrite.
|
|
|
|
println!("{}", x);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// x goes out of scope; x might be uninit;
|
|
|
|
// check the flag!
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, in this case it's trivial to retrieve static drop semantics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
|
|
# let condition = true;
|
|
|
|
if condition {
|
|
|
|
let x = Box::new(0);
|
|
|
|
println!("{}", x);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The drop flags are tracked on the stack and no longer stashed in types that
|
|
|
|
implement drop.
|