First draft of `const`

case-study-borrow-checker
Bradlee Speice 2019-01-15 22:42:26 -05:00
parent 71c0be652d
commit 2ca50b0d24
1 changed files with 132 additions and 11 deletions

View File

@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ about your program:
Each one is 4 bytes, for a total of 12 bytes. We can temporarily reserve space for all
variables because we know exactly how much space is needed.
- If you're looking at the assembly: `millis` is stored in `edi`,
`micros` is stored in `eax`, and `nanos` is stored in `ecx`.
`micros` is stored in `eax`, and `nanos` is stored in `ecx`.
The `eax` register is re-used to store the final result.
2. Because `MICROS_PER_MILLI` and `NANOS_PER_MICRO` are constants, the compiler never
allocates memory, and just burns the constants into the final program.
- Look for the `mov edi, 1000` and `mov ecx, 1000`.
@ -128,22 +129,142 @@ was a bit silly though, so let's talk about the more interesting details.
## **static** and **const**: Program Allocations
The first memory type we'll look at is pretty special; when Rust can prove that
certain *references* are valid for the lifetime of the program (`static`,
not specifically `'static`), and when certain *values* are the same for the lifetime
of the program (`const`). Understanding the distinction between reference and value
is important; **`static` forces the Rust compiler to guarantee a unique reference
to the declared expression, while `const` allows the compiler to make copies of the
expression wherever it chooses.**
The first memory type we'll look at is pretty special: when Rust can prove that
a *reference* is valid for the lifetime of the program (`static`, not specifically
`'static`), and when a *value* is the same for the lifetime of the program (`const`).
Understanding the distinction between reference and value is important for reasons
we'll go into below. The
[full specification](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0246-const-vs-static.md)
for these two memory types is available, but I'd rather take a hands-on approach to the topic.
You can take a look at [the specification](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0246-const-vs-static.md)
if you want, but I'd rather take a hands-on approach to the topic.
### **const**
The quick summary is this: `const` declares a read-only block of memory that is loaded
as part of your program binary (during the call to [exec(3)](https://linux.die.net/man/3/exec)).
Any `const` value resulting from calling a `const fn` is guaranteed to be materialized
at compile-time (meaning that access at runtime will not invoke the `const fn`),
even though the function is available at run-time as well. The compiler can choose to
copy the constant value wherever it is deemed practical. Getting the address of a `const`
value is legal, but not guaranteed to be the same even when referring to the same
named identifier.
The first point is a bit strange - "read-only memory". *Typically* in Rust you can use
"inner mutability" to modify things that aren't declared `mut`.
[`RefCell`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.RefCell.html) provides an API
to guarantee at runtime that some consistency rules are enforced:
```rust
use std::cell::RefCell;
fn my_mutator(cell: &RefCell<u8>) {
// Even though we're given an immutable reference,
// the `replace` method allows us to modify the inner value.
cell.replace(14);
}
fn main() {
let cell = RefCell::new(25);
// Prints out 25
println!("Cell: {:?}", cell);
my_mutator(&cell);
// Prints out 14
println!("Cell: {:?}", cell);
}
```
-- [Rust Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=8e4bea1a718edaff4507944e825a54b2)
When `const` is involved though, modifications are silently ignored:
```rust
use std::cell::RefCell;
const CELL: RefCell<u8> = RefCell::new(25);
fn my_mutator(cell: &RefCell<u8>) {
cell.replace(14);
}
fn main() {
// First line prints 25 as expected
println!("Cell: {:?}", &CELL);
my_mutator(&CELL);
// Second line *still* prints 25
println!("Cell: {:?}", &CELL);
}
```
-- [Rust Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=88fe98110c33c1b3a51e341f48b8ae00)
And a second example using [`Once`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Once.html):
```rust
use std::sync::Once;
const SURPRISE: Once = Once::new();
fn main() {
// This is how `Once` is supposed to be used
SURPRISE.call_once(|| println!("Initializing..."));
// Because `Once` is a `const` value, we never record it
// having been initialized the first time, and this closure
// will also execute.
SURPRISE.call_once(|| println!("Initializing again???"));
}
```
-- [Rust Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=c3cc5979b5e5434eca0f9ec4a06ee0ed)
[Clippy](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy) will treat this behavior as an error if attempted,
but it's still something to be aware of.
The next thing to mention is that `const` values are loaded into memory *as part of your program binary*.
Because of this, any `const` values declared in your program will be "realized" at compile-time;
accessing them may trigger a main-memory lookup, but that's it.
```rust
use std::cell::RefCell;
const CELL: RefCell<u32> = RefCell::new(24);
pub fn multiply(value: u32) -> u32 {
value * (*CELL.get_mut())
}
```
-- [Compiler Explorer](https://godbolt.org/z/ZMjmdM)
The compiler only creates one `RefCell`, and uses it everywhere. However, that value
is fully realized at compile time, and is fully stored in the `.L__unnamed_1` section.
If it's helpful though, the compiler can choose to copy `const` values.
```rust
const FACTOR: u32 = 1000;
pub fn multiply(value: u32) -> u32 {
value * FACTOR
}
pub fn multiply_twice(value: u32) -> u32 {
value * FACTOR * FACTOR
}
```
-- [Compiler Explorer](https://godbolt.org/z/Qc7tHM)
In this example, the `FACTOR` value is turned into the `mov edi, 1000` instruction
in both the `multiply` and `multiply_twice` functions; the "1000" value is never
"stored" anywhere, as it's small enough to use directly.
Finally, getting the address of a `const` value is possible but not guaranteed
to be unique (given that the compiler can choose to copy values). In my testing
I was never able to get the compiler to copy a `const` value and get differing pointers,
but the specifications are clear enough: *don't rely on pointers to `const`
values being consistent*. To be frank, I have no idea why you'd ever care about
a pointer to `const`.
### **static**
Final note: `thread_local!()` is always a heap allocation.
## **push** and **pop**: Stack Allocations
The first
Example: Why doesn't `Vec::new()` go to the allocator?
Questions: