Skip to content

Split out common behavior of FnStatic and FnPtr into a new trait: FnAddr #837

Description

@WaffleLapkin

Proposal

Problem statement

ACP #589 (tracked at rust-lang/rust#148768) introduced two new traits:

// core::ops

// Implemented only for function pointers.
pub unsafe trait FnPtr {
    fn addr(self) -> usize;
    fn as_ptr(self) -> NonNull<Code>;
    unsafe fn from_ptr(NonNull<Code>) -> Self;
}

// Implemented for all types that coerce to function pointers.
pub unsafe trait FnStatic<Args>: Fn<Args> {
    type FnPtr: FnPtr;
    fn as_fn() -> Self::FnPtr;
    fn addr() -> usize;
    fn as_ptr() -> NonNull<Code>;
    extern "rust-call" fn call_static(args: Args) -> Self::Output;
}

They share some functionality that can be refactored into a separate trait that could be used for both function pointers and types which coerce to them (function definitions and closures without captures), but can't be since the traits are mutually exclusive.

Motivating examples or use cases

See ACP #836 that would like to be able to get an address of both function pointers and function definitions.

Solution sketch

Add a new trait with the shared functionality:

// Implemented for function pointers and types that coerce to function pointers
pub unsafe trait FnAddr {
    fn addr(self) -> usize;
    fn as_ptr(self) -> NonNull<Code>;
}

And then use it as the super trait of both FnStatic and FnPtr:

 // Implemented only for function pointers.
-pub unsafe trait FnPtr {
+pub unsafe trait FnPtr: FnAddr {
-    fn addr(self) -> usize;
-    fn as_ptr(self) -> NonNull<Code>;
     unsafe fn from_ptr(NonNull<Code>) -> Self;
 }

 // Implemented for all types that coerce to function pointers.
-pub unsafe trait FnStatic<Args>: Fn<Args> {
+pub unsafe trait FnStatic<Args>: Fn<Args> + FnAddr {
     type FnPtr: FnPtr;
     fn as_fn() -> Self::FnPtr;
-    fn addr() -> usize;
-    fn as_ptr() -> NonNull<Code>;
     extern "rust-call" fn call_static(args: Args) -> Self::Output;
 }

Alternatives

  • Keep things as is?

Links and related work

What happens now?

This issue contains an API change proposal (or ACP) and is part of the libs-api team feature lifecycle. Once this issue is filed, the libs-api team will review open proposals as capability becomes available. Current response times do not have a clear estimate, but may be up to several months.

Possible responses

The libs team may respond in various different ways. First, the team will consider the problem (this doesn't require any concrete solution or alternatives to have been proposed):

  • We think this problem seems worth solving, and the standard library might be the right place to solve it.
  • We think that this probably doesn't belong in the standard library.

Second, if there's a concrete solution:

  • We think this specific solution looks roughly right, approved, you or someone else should implement this. (Further review will still happen on the subsequent implementation PR.)
  • We're not sure this is the right solution, and the alternatives or other materials don't give us enough information to be sure about that. Here are some questions we have that aren't answered, or rough ideas about alternatives we'd want to see discussed.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    T-libsRelevant to the libraries subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.api-change-proposalA proposal to add or alter unstable APIs in the standard libraries

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions