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:
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:
fn main() { 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. }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:
fn main() { 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! }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:
fn main() { 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! }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:
fn main() { let condition = true; if condition { let x = Box::new(0); println!("{}", x); } }if condition { let x = Box::new(0); println!("{}", x); }
As of Rust 1.0, the drop flags are actually not-so-secretly stashed in a hidden field of any type that implements Drop. Rust sets the drop flag by overwriting the entire value with a particular bit pattern. This is pretty obviously Not The Fastest and causes a bunch of trouble with optimizing code. It's legacy from a time when you could do much more complex conditional initialization.
As such work is currently under way to move the flags out onto the stack frame where they more reasonably belong. Unfortunately, this work will take some time as it requires fairly substantial changes to the compiler.
Regardless, Rust programs don't need to worry about uninitialized values on the stack for correctness. Although they might care for performance. Thankfully, Rust makes it easy to take control here! Uninitialized values are there, and you can work with them in Safe Rust, but you're never in danger.