progress

Author: Gankra

conversions.md

@@ -1,7 +1,77 @@
 % Type Conversions
 
+At the end of the day, everything is just a pile of bits somewhere, and type systems
+are just there to help us use those bits right. Needing to reinterpret those piles
+of bits as different types is a common problem and Rust consequently gives you
+several ways to do that.
+
 # Safe Rust
 
+First we'll look at the ways that *Safe Rust* gives you to reinterpret values. The
+most trivial way to do this is to just destructure a value into its constituent
+parts and then build a new type out of them. e.g.
+
+```rust
+struct Foo {
+	x: u32,
+	y: u16,
+}
+
+struct Bar {
+	a: u32,
+	b: u16,
+}
+
+fn reinterpret(foo: Foo) -> Bar {
+	let Foo { x, y } = foo;
+	Bar { a: x, b: y }
+}
+```
+
+But this is, at best, annoying to do. For common conversions, rust provides
+more ergonomic alternatives.
+
+## Auto-Deref
+
+Deref is a trait that allows you to overload the unary `*` to specify a type
+you dereference to. This is largely only intended to be implemented by pointer
+types like `&`, `Box`, and `Rc`. The dot operator will automatically perform
+automatic dereferencing, so that foo.bar() will work uniformly on `Foo`, `&Foo`, `&&Foo`,
+`&Rc<Box<&mut&Box<Foo>>>` and so-on. Search bottoms out on the *first* match,
+so implementing methods on pointers is generally to be avoided, as it will shadow
+"actual" methods.
+
+## Coercions
+
+Types can implicitly be coerced to change in certain contexts. These changes are generally
+just *weakening* of types, largely focused around pointers. They mostly exist to make
+Rust "just work" in more cases. For instance
+`&mut T` coerces to `&T`, and `&T` coerces to `*const T`. The most useful coercion you will
+actually think about it is probably the general *Deref Coercion*: `&T` coerces to `&U` when
+`T: Deref<U>`. This enables us to pass an `&String` where an `&str` is expected, for instance.
+
+## Casts
+
+Casts are a superset of coercions: every coercion can be explicitly invoked via a cast,
+but some changes require a cast. These "true casts" are generally regarded as dangerous or
+problematic actions. The set of true casts is actually quite small, and once again revolves
+largely around pointers. However it also introduces the primary mechanism to convert between
+numeric types.
+
+* rawptr -> rawptr (e.g. `*mut T as *const T` or `*mut T as *mut U`)
+* rawptr <-> usize (e.g. `*mut T as usize` or `usize as *mut T`)
+* primitive -> primitive (e.g. `u32 as u8` or `u8 as u32`)
+* c-like enum -> integer/bool (e.g. `DaysOfWeek as u8`)
+* `u8` -> `char`
+
+
+## Conversion Traits
+
+For full formal specification of all the kinds of coercions and coercion sites, see:
+https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0401-coercions.md
+
+
+
 * Coercions
 * Casts
 * Conversion Traits (Into/As/...)

data.md

@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+% Data Representation in Rust
+
+Low-level programming cares a lot about data layout. It's a big deal. It also pervasively
+influences the rest of the language, so we're going to start by digging into how data is
+represented in Rust.
+
+# The `rust` repr
+
+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)
+
+For all these, individual fields are aligned to their preferred alignment.
+For primitives this is 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 their size rounded
+up to be a multiple of the highest alignment required by their fields, and an alignment
+requirement equal to the highest alignment required by their fields. So for instance,
+
+```rust
+struct A {
+    a: u8,
+    c: u64,
+    b: u32,
+}
+```
+
+will have a size that is a multiple of 64-bits, and 64-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, 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 former 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 1.0.0**
+
+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
+`sizeof(Option<&T>) == sizeof<&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.
+
+# Dynamically Sized Types (DSTs)
+
+Rust also supports types without a statically known size. On the surface,
+this is a bit nonsensical: Rust must know the size of something in order to
+work with it. DSTs are generally produced as views, or through type-erasure
+of types that *do* have a known size. Due to their lack of a statically known
+size, these types can only exist *behind* some kind of pointer. They consequently
+produce a *fat* pointer consisting of the pointer and the information that
+*completes* them.
+
+For instance, the slice type, `[T]`, is some statically unknown number of elements
+stored contiguously. `&[T]` consequently consists of a `(&T, usize)` pair that specifies
+where the slice starts, and how many elements it contains. Similarly Trait Objects
+support interface-oriented type erasure through a `(data_ptr, vtable_ptr)` pair.
+
+Structs can actually store a single DST directly as their last field, but this
+makes them a DST as well:
+
+```rust
+// Can't be stored on the stack directly
+struct Foo {
+    info: u32,
+    data: [u8],
+}
+```
+
+# Zero Sized Types (ZSTs)
+
+Rust actually allows types to be specified that occupy *no* space:
+
+```rust
+struct Foo; // No fields = no size
+enum Bar; // No variants = no size
+
+// All fields have no size = no size
+struct Baz {
+    foo: Foo,
+    bar: Bar,
+    qux: (), // empty tuple has no size
+}
+```
+
+On their own, ZSTs are, for obvious reasons, pretty useless. However
+as with many curious layout choices in Rust, their potential is realized in a generic
+context.
+
+Rust largely understands that any operation that produces or stores a ZST
+can be reduced to a no-op. For instance, a `HashSet<T>` can be effeciently implemented
+as a thin wrapper around `HashMap<T, ()>` because all the operations `HashMap` normally
+does to store and retrieve keys will be completely stripped in monomorphization.
+
+Similarly `Result<(), ()>` and `Option<()>` are effectively just fancy `bool`s.
+
+Safe code need not worry about ZSTs, but *unsafe* code must be careful about the
+consequence of types with no size. In particular, pointer offsets are no-ops, and
+standard allocators (including jemalloc, the one used by Rust) generally consider
+passing in `0` as Undefined Behaviour.
+
+# Drop Flags
+
+For unfortunate legacy implementation reasons, Rust as of 1.0.0 will do a nasty trick to
+any type that implements the `Drop` trait (has a destructor): it will insert a secret field
+in the type. That is,
+
+```rust
+struct Foo {
+    a: u32,
+    b: u32,
+}
+
+impl Drop for Foo {
+    fn drop(&mut self) { }
+}
+```
+
+will cause Foo to secretly become:
+
+```rust
+struct Foo {
+    a: u32,
+    b: u32,
+    _drop_flag: u8,
+}
+```
+
+For details as to *why* this is done, and how to make it not happen, check out
+[SOME OTHER SECTION].
+
+# Alternative representations
+
+Rust allows you to specify alternative data layout strategies from the default Rust
+one.
+
+# repr(C)
+
+This is the most important `repr`. It has fairly simple intent: do what C does.
+The order, size, and alignment of fields is exactly what you would expect from
+C or C++. Any type you expect to pass through an FFI boundary should have `repr(C)`,
+as C is the lingua-franca of the programming world. However this is also necessary
+to soundly do more elaborate tricks with data layout such as reintepretting values
+as a different type.
+
+However, the interaction with Rust's more exotic data layout features must be kept
+in mind. Due to its dual purpose as a "for FFI" and "for layout control", repr(C)
+can be applied to types that will be nonsensical or problematic if passed through
+the FFI boundary.
+
+* ZSTs are still zero-sized, even though this is not a standard behaviour
+in C, and is explicitly contrary to the behaviour of an empty type in C++, which
+still consumes a byte of space.
+
+* DSTs are not a concept in C
+
+* **The drop flag will still be added**
+
+* This is equivalent to repr(u32) for enums (see below)
+
+# repr(packed)
+
+`repr(packed)` forces rust to strip any padding it would normally apply.
+This may improve the memory footprint of a type, but will have negative
+side-effects from "field access is heavily penalized" to "completely breaks
+everything" based on target platform.
+
+# repr(u8), repr(u16), repr(u32), repr(u64)
+
+These specify the size to make a c-like enum (one which has no values in its variants).
+