Add `{into,from}_raw` to Rc and Arc
These methods convert to and from a `*const T` for `Rc` and `Arc` similar to the way they work on `Box`. The only slight complication is that `from_raw` needs to offset the pointer back to find the beginning of the `RcBox`/`ArcInner`.
I felt this is a fairly small addition, filling in a gap (when compared to `Box`) so it wouldn't need an RFC. The motivation is primarily for FFI.
(I'll create an issue and update a PR with the issue number if reviewers agree with the change in principle **Edit: done #37197**)
~~Edit: This was initially `{into,from}_raw` but concerns were raised about the possible footgun if mixed with the methods of the same name of `Box`.~~
Edit: This was went from `{into,from}_raw` to `{into,from}_inner_raw` then back to `{into,from}_raw` during review.
The original description suggests that the original `Rc<T>` itself is downgraded, which doesn't seem to be what the code does. At the same time, `Rc` is one of those types that can do weird things with only a shared reference, so I thought it would be good to be clear.
This allows printing pointers to unsized types with the {:p} formatting
directive. The following impls are extended to unsized types:
- impl<'a, T: ?Sized> Pointer for &'a T
- impl<'a, T: ?Sized> Pointer for &'a mut T
- impl<T: ?Sized> Pointer for *const T
- impl<T: ?Sized> Pointer for *mut T
- impl<T: ?Sized> fmt::Pointer for Box<T>
- impl<T: ?Sized> fmt::Pointer for Rc<T>
- impl<T: ?Sized> fmt::Pointer for Arc<T>
This hairy conditional doesn't need to be so. It _does_ need to be a
thin pointer, otherwise, it will fail to compile, so let's pull that out
into a temporary for future readers of the source.
/cc @nrc @SimonSapin @Gankro @durka , who brought this up on IRC
This hairy conditional doesn't need to be so. It _does_ need to be a
thin pointer, otherwise, it will fail to compile, so let's pull that out
into a temporary for future readers of the source.
Also, after a discussion with @pnkfelix and @gankro, we don't need these
null checks anymore, as zero-on-drop has been gone for a while now.
This is a standard "clean out libstd" commit which removes all 1.5-and-before
deprecated functionality as it's now all been deprecated for at least one entire
cycle.
Sometimes when writing generic code you want to abstract over
owning/pointer type so that calling code isn't restricted by one
concrete owning/pointer type. This commit makes possible such code:
```rust
fn i_will_work_with_arc<T: Into<Arc<MyTy>>>(t: T) {
let the_arc = t.into();
// Do something
}
i_will_work_with_arc(MyTy::new());
i_will_work_with_arc(Box::new(MyTy::new()));
let arc_that_i_already_have = Arc::new(MyTy::new());
i_will_work_with_arc(arc_that_i_already_have);
```
Please note that this patch doesn't work with DSTs.
Also to mention, I made those impls stable, and I don't know whether they should be actually stable from the beginning. Please tell me if this should be feature-gated.
Sometimes when writing generic code you want to abstract over
owning/pointer type so that calling code isn't restricted by one
concrete owning/pointer type. This commit makes possible such code:
```
fn i_will_work_with_arc<T: Into<Arc<MyTy>>>(t: T) {
let the_arc = t.into();
// Do something
}
i_will_work_with_arc(MyTy::new());
i_will_work_with_arc(Box::new(MyTy::new()));
let arc_that_i_already_have = Arc::new(MyTy::new());
i_will_work_with_arc(arc_that_i_already_have);
```
Please note that this patch doesn't work with DSTs.
`Rc::try_unwrap` and `Rc::make_mut` are stable since 1.4.0, but the example code still has `#![feature(rc_unique)]`. Ideally the stable and beta docs would be updated, but I don't think that's possible...
This change has two consequences:
1. It makes `Arc<T>` and `Rc<T>` covariant in `T`.
2. It causes the compiler to reject code that was unsound with respect
to dropck. See compile-fail/issue-29106.rs for an example of code that
no longer compiles. Because of this, this is a [breaking-change].
Fixes#29037.
Fixes#29106.
