bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

Do not require that unsafe fields lack drop glue

Browse source 
Instead, we adopt the position that introducing an `unsafe` field
itself carries a safety invariant: that if you assign an invariant
to that field weaker than what the field's destructor requires,
you must ensure that field is in a droppable state in your
destructor.

See:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3458#discussion_r1971676100
- https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/unsafe.20fields.20RFC/near/502113897
This commit is contained in:
Jack Wrenn 2025-02-28 16:32:06 +00:00
parent 2f581937e1
commit 91034adf30
6 changed files with 5 additions and 80 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/messages.ftl
View file

@ -278,13 +278,6 @@ hir_analysis_invalid_union_field =
hir_analysis_invalid_union_field_sugg =
wrap the field type in `ManuallyDrop<...>`
hir_analysis_invalid_unsafe_field =
field must implement `Copy` or be wrapped in `ManuallyDrop<...>` to be unsafe
.note = unsafe fields must not have drop side-effects, which is currently enforced via either `Copy` or `ManuallyDrop<...>`
hir_analysis_invalid_unsafe_field_sugg =
wrap the field type in `ManuallyDrop<...>`
hir_analysis_late_bound_const_in_apit = `impl Trait` can only mention const parameters from an fn or impl
.label = const parameter declared here