//! as moving an object with pointers to itself will invalidate them, which could cause undefined
//! behavior.
//!
-//! At a high level, a [`Pin<P>`] ensures that the pointee of any pointer type
+//! At a high level, a <code>[Pin]\<P></code> ensures that the pointee of any pointer type
//! `P` has a stable location in memory, meaning it cannot be moved elsewhere
//! and its memory cannot be deallocated until it gets dropped. We say that the
//! pointee is "pinned". Things get more subtle when discussing types that
//! for more details.
//!
//! By default, all types in Rust are movable. Rust allows passing all types by-value,
-//! and common smart-pointer types such as [`Box<T>`] and `&mut T` allow replacing and
-//! moving the values they contain: you can move out of a [`Box<T>`], or you can use [`mem::swap`].
-//! [`Pin<P>`] wraps a pointer type `P`, so [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` functions much like a regular
-//! [`Box<T>`]: when a [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` gets dropped, so do its contents, and the memory gets
-//! deallocated. Similarly, [`Pin`]`<&mut T>` is a lot like `&mut T`. However, [`Pin<P>`] does
-//! not let clients actually obtain a [`Box<T>`] or `&mut T` to pinned data, which implies that you
-//! cannot use operations such as [`mem::swap`]:
+//! and common smart-pointer types such as <code>[Box]\<T></code> and <code>[&mut] T</code> allow
+//! replacing and moving the values they contain: you can move out of a <code>[Box]\<T></code>,
+//! or you can use [`mem::swap`]. <code>[Pin]\<P></code> wraps a pointer type `P`, so
+//! <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> functions much like a regular <code>[Box]\<T></code>:
+//! when a <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> gets dropped, so do its contents, and the memory gets
+//! deallocated. Similarly, <code>[Pin]<[&mut] T></code> is a lot like <code>[&mut] T</code>.
+//! However, <code>[Pin]\<P></code> does not let clients actually obtain a <code>[Box]\<T></code>
+//! or <code>[&mut] T</code> to pinned data, which implies that you cannot use operations such
+//! as [`mem::swap`]:
//!
//! ```
//! use std::pin::Pin;
//! }
//! ```
//!
-//! It is worth reiterating that [`Pin<P>`] does *not* change the fact that a Rust compiler
-//! considers all types movable. [`mem::swap`] remains callable for any `T`. Instead, [`Pin<P>`]
-//! prevents certain *values* (pointed to by pointers wrapped in [`Pin<P>`]) from being
-//! moved by making it impossible to call methods that require `&mut T` on them
-//! (like [`mem::swap`]).
-//!
-//! [`Pin<P>`] can be used to wrap any pointer type `P`, and as such it interacts with
-//! [`Deref`] and [`DerefMut`]. A [`Pin<P>`] where `P: Deref` should be considered
-//! as a "`P`-style pointer" to a pinned `P::Target` -- so, a [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` is
-//! an owned pointer to a pinned `T`, and a [`Pin`]`<`[`Rc`]`<T>>` is a reference-counted
-//! pointer to a pinned `T`.
-//! For correctness, [`Pin<P>`] relies on the implementations of [`Deref`] and
+//! It is worth reiterating that <code>[Pin]\<P></code> does *not* change the fact that a Rust
+//! compiler considers all types movable. [`mem::swap`] remains callable for any `T`. Instead,
+//! <code>[Pin]\<P></code> prevents certain *values* (pointed to by pointers wrapped in
+//! <code>[Pin]\<P></code>) from being moved by making it impossible to call methods that require
+//! <code>[&mut] T</code> on them (like [`mem::swap`]).
+//!
+//! <code>[Pin]\<P></code> can be used to wrap any pointer type `P`, and as such it interacts with
+//! [`Deref`] and [`DerefMut`]. A <code>[Pin]\<P></code> where <code>P: [Deref]</code> should be
+//! considered as a "`P`-style pointer" to a pinned <code>P::[Target]</code> – so, a
+//! <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> is an owned pointer to a pinned `T`, and a
+//! <code>[Pin]<[Rc]\<T>></code> is a reference-counted pointer to a pinned `T`.
+//! For correctness, <code>[Pin]\<P></code> relies on the implementations of [`Deref`] and
//! [`DerefMut`] not to move out of their `self` parameter, and only ever to
//! return a pointer to pinned data when they are called on a pinned pointer.
//!
//! rely on having a stable address. This includes all the basic types (like
//! [`bool`], [`i32`], and references) as well as types consisting solely of these
//! types. Types that do not care about pinning implement the [`Unpin`]
-//! auto-trait, which cancels the effect of [`Pin<P>`]. For `T: Unpin`,
-//! [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` and [`Box<T>`] function identically, as do [`Pin`]`<&mut T>` and
-//! `&mut T`.
+//! auto-trait, which cancels the effect of <code>[Pin]\<P></code>. For <code>T: [Unpin]</code>,
+//! <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> and <code>[Box]\<T></code> function identically, as do
+//! <code>[Pin]<[&mut] T></code> and <code>[&mut] T</code>.
//!
-//! Note that pinning and [`Unpin`] only affect the pointed-to type `P::Target`, not the pointer
-//! type `P` itself that got wrapped in [`Pin<P>`]. For example, whether or not [`Box<T>`] is
-//! [`Unpin`] has no effect on the behavior of [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` (here, `T` is the
-//! pointed-to type).
+//! Note that pinning and [`Unpin`] only affect the pointed-to type <code>P::[Target]</code>,
+//! not the pointer type `P` itself that got wrapped in <code>[Pin]\<P></code>. For example,
+//! whether or not <code>[Box]\<T></code> is [`Unpin`] has no effect on the behavior of
+//! <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> (here, `T` is the pointed-to type).
//!
//! # Example: self-referential struct
//!
//! Before we go into more details to explain the guarantees and choices
-//! associated with `Pin<T>`, we discuss some examples for how it might be used.
+//! associated with <code>[Pin]\<P></code>, we discuss some examples for how it might be used.
//! Feel free to [skip to where the theoretical discussion continues](#drop-guarantee).
//!
//! ```rust
//!
//! To make this work, every element has pointers to its predecessor and successor in
//! the list. Elements can only be added when they are pinned, because moving the elements
-//! around would invalidate the pointers. Moreover, the [`Drop`] implementation of a linked
+//! around would invalidate the pointers. Moreover, the [`Drop`][Drop] implementation of a linked
//! list element will patch the pointers of its predecessor and successor to remove itself
//! from the list.
//!
//! when [`drop`] is called*. Only once [`drop`] returns or panics, the memory may be reused.
//!
//! Memory can be "invalidated" by deallocation, but also by
-//! replacing a [`Some(v)`] by [`None`], or calling [`Vec::set_len`] to "kill" some elements
-//! off of a vector. It can be repurposed by using [`ptr::write`] to overwrite it without
+//! replacing a <code>[Some]\(v)</code> by [`None`], or calling [`Vec::set_len`] to "kill" some
+//! elements off of a vector. It can be repurposed by using [`ptr::write`] to overwrite it without
//! calling the destructor first. None of this is allowed for pinned data without calling [`drop`].
//!
//! This is exactly the kind of guarantee that the intrusive linked list from the previous
//!
//! Notice that this guarantee does *not* mean that memory does not leak! It is still
//! completely okay not ever to call [`drop`] on a pinned element (e.g., you can still
-//! call [`mem::forget`] on a [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>`). In the example of the doubly-linked
+//! call [`mem::forget`] on a <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code>). In the example of the doubly-linked
//! list, that element would just stay in the list. However you may not free or reuse the storage
//! *without calling [`drop`]*.
//!
//! # `Drop` implementation
//!
//! If your type uses pinning (such as the two examples above), you have to be careful
-//! when implementing [`Drop`]. The [`drop`] function takes `&mut self`, but this
+//! when implementing [`Drop`][Drop]. The [`drop`] function takes <code>[&mut] self</code>, but this
//! is called *even if your type was previously pinned*! It is as if the
//! compiler automatically called [`Pin::get_unchecked_mut`].
//!
//! This can never cause a problem in safe code because implementing a type that
//! relies on pinning requires unsafe code, but be aware that deciding to make
//! use of pinning in your type (for example by implementing some operation on
-//! [`Pin`]`<&Self>` or [`Pin`]`<&mut Self>`) has consequences for your [`Drop`]
-//! implementation as well: if an element of your type could have been pinned,
-//! you must treat [`Drop`] as implicitly taking [`Pin`]`<&mut Self>`.
+//! <code>[Pin]<[&]Self></code> or <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Self></code>) has consequences for your
+//! [`Drop`][Drop]implementation as well: if an element of your type could have been pinned,
+//! you must treat [`Drop`][Drop] as implicitly taking <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Self></code>.
//!
-//! For example, you could implement `Drop` as follows:
+//! For example, you could implement [`Drop`][Drop] as follows:
//!
//! ```rust,no_run
//! # use std::pin::Pin;
//! # Projections and Structural Pinning
//!
//! When working with pinned structs, the question arises how one can access the
-//! fields of that struct in a method that takes just [`Pin`]`<&mut Struct>`.
+//! fields of that struct in a method that takes just <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Struct></code>.
//! The usual approach is to write helper methods (so called *projections*)
-//! that turn [`Pin`]`<&mut Struct>` into a reference to the field, but what
-//! type should that reference have? Is it [`Pin`]`<&mut Field>` or `&mut Field`?
+//! that turn <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Struct></code> into a reference to the field, but what type should
+//! that reference have? Is it <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Field></code> or <code>[&mut] Field</code>?
//! The same question arises with the fields of an `enum`, and also when considering
-//! container/wrapper types such as [`Vec<T>`], [`Box<T>`], or [`RefCell<T>`].
-//! (This question applies to both mutable and shared references, we just
-//! use the more common case of mutable references here for illustration.)
+//! container/wrapper types such as <code>[Vec]\<T></code>, <code>[Box]\<T></code>,
+//! or <code>[RefCell]\<T></code>. (This question applies to both mutable and shared references,
+//! we just use the more common case of mutable references here for illustration.)
//!
-//! It turns out that it is actually up to the author of the data structure
-//! to decide whether the pinned projection for a particular field turns
-//! [`Pin`]`<&mut Struct>` into [`Pin`]`<&mut Field>` or `&mut Field`. There are some
+//! It turns out that it is actually up to the author of the data structure to decide whether
+//! the pinned projection for a particular field turns <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Struct></code>
+//! into <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Field></code> or <code>[&mut] Field</code>. There are some
//! constraints though, and the most important constraint is *consistency*:
//! every field can be *either* projected to a pinned reference, *or* have
//! pinning removed as part of the projection. If both are done for the same field,
//! ## Pinning *is not* structural for `field`
//!
//! It may seem counter-intuitive that the field of a pinned struct might not be pinned,
-//! but that is actually the easiest choice: if a [`Pin`]`<&mut Field>` is never created,
+//! but that is actually the easiest choice: if a <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Field></code> is never created,
//! nothing can go wrong! So, if you decide that some field does not have structural pinning,
//! all you have to ensure is that you never create a pinned reference to that field.
//!
//! Fields without structural pinning may have a projection method that turns
-//! [`Pin`]`<&mut Struct>` into `&mut Field`:
+//! <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Struct></code> into <code>[&mut] Field</code>:
//!
//! ```rust,no_run
//! # use std::pin::Pin;
//! }
//! ```
//!
-//! You may also `impl Unpin for Struct` *even if* the type of `field`
+//! You may also <code>impl [Unpin] for Struct</code> *even if* the type of `field`
//! is not [`Unpin`]. What that type thinks about pinning is not relevant
-//! when no [`Pin`]`<&mut Field>` is ever created.
+//! when no <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Field></code> is ever created.
//!
//! ## Pinning *is* structural for `field`
//!
//! The other option is to decide that pinning is "structural" for `field`,
//! meaning that if the struct is pinned then so is the field.
//!
-//! This allows writing a projection that creates a [`Pin`]`<&mut Field>`, thus
+//! This allows writing a projection that creates a <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Field></code>, thus
//! witnessing that the field is pinned:
//!
//! ```rust,no_run
//! 1. The struct must only be [`Unpin`] if all the structural fields are
//! [`Unpin`]. This is the default, but [`Unpin`] is a safe trait, so as the author of
//! the struct it is your responsibility *not* to add something like
-//! `impl<T> Unpin for Struct<T>`. (Notice that adding a projection operation
+//! <code>impl\<T> [Unpin] for Struct\<T></code>. (Notice that adding a projection operation
//! requires unsafe code, so the fact that [`Unpin`] is a safe trait does not break
-//! the principle that you only have to worry about any of this if you use `unsafe`.)
+//! the principle that you only have to worry about any of this if you use [`unsafe`].)
//! 2. The destructor of the struct must not move structural fields out of its argument. This
-//! is the exact point that was raised in the [previous section][drop-impl]: `drop` takes
-//! `&mut self`, but the struct (and hence its fields) might have been pinned before.
-//! You have to guarantee that you do not move a field inside your [`Drop`] implementation.
-//! In particular, as explained previously, this means that your struct must *not*
-//! be `#[repr(packed)]`.
+//! is the exact point that was raised in the [previous section][drop-impl]: [`drop`] takes
+//! <code>[&mut] self</code>, but the struct (and hence its fields) might have been pinned
+//! before. You have to guarantee that you do not move a field inside your [`Drop`][Drop]
+//! implementation. In particular, as explained previously, this means that your struct
+//! must *not* be `#[repr(packed)]`.
//! See that section for how to write [`drop`] in a way that the compiler can help you
//! not accidentally break pinning.
//! 3. You must make sure that you uphold the [`Drop` guarantee][drop-guarantee]:
//! once your struct is pinned, the memory that contains the
//! content is not overwritten or deallocated without calling the content's destructors.
-//! This can be tricky, as witnessed by [`VecDeque<T>`]: the destructor of [`VecDeque<T>`]
-//! can fail to call [`drop`] on all elements if one of the destructors panics. This violates
-//! the [`Drop`] guarantee, because it can lead to elements being deallocated without
-//! their destructor being called. ([`VecDeque<T>`] has no pinning projections, so this
+//! This can be tricky, as witnessed by <code>[VecDeque]\<T></code>: the destructor of
+//! <code>[VecDeque]\<T></code> can fail to call [`drop`] on all elements if one of the
+//! destructors panics. This violates the [`Drop`][Drop] guarantee, because it can lead to
+//! elements being deallocated without their destructor being called.
+//! (<code>[VecDeque]\<T></code> has no pinning projections, so this
//! does not cause unsoundness.)
//! 4. You must not offer any other operations that could lead to data being moved out of
//! the structural fields when your type is pinned. For example, if the struct contains an
-//! [`Option<T>`] and there is a `take`-like operation with type
-//! `fn(Pin<&mut Struct<T>>) -> Option<T>`,
-//! that operation can be used to move a `T` out of a pinned `Struct<T>` -- which means
+//! <code>[Option]\<T></code> and there is a [`take`][Option::take]-like operation with type
+//! <code>fn([Pin]<[&mut] Struct\<T>>) -> [Option]\<T></code>,
+//! that operation can be used to move a `T` out of a pinned `Struct<T>` – which means
//! pinning cannot be structural for the field holding this data.
//!
-//! For a more complex example of moving data out of a pinned type, imagine if [`RefCell<T>`]
-//! had a method `fn get_pin_mut(self: Pin<&mut Self>) -> Pin<&mut T>`.
+//! For a more complex example of moving data out of a pinned type,
+//! imagine if <code>[RefCell]\<T></code> had a method
+//! <code>fn get_pin_mut(self: [Pin]<[&mut] Self>) -> [Pin]<[&mut] T></code>.
//! Then we could do the following:
//! ```compile_fail
//! fn exploit_ref_cell<T>(rc: Pin<&mut RefCell<T>>) {
//! let content = &mut *b; // And here we have `&mut T` to the same data.
//! }
//! ```
-//! This is catastrophic, it means we can first pin the content of the [`RefCell<T>`]
-//! (using `RefCell::get_pin_mut`) and then move that content using the mutable
-//! reference we got later.
+//! This is catastrophic, it means we can first pin the content of the
+//! <code>[RefCell]\<T></code> (using <code>[RefCell]::get_pin_mut</code>) and then move that
+//! content using the mutable reference we got later.
//!
//! ## Examples
//!
-//! For a type like [`Vec<T>`], both possibilities (structural pinning or not) make sense.
-//! A [`Vec<T>`] with structural pinning could have `get_pin`/`get_pin_mut` methods to get
-//! pinned references to elements. However, it could *not* allow calling
-//! [`pop`][Vec::pop] on a pinned [`Vec<T>`] because that would move the (structurally pinned)
-//! contents! Nor could it allow [`push`][Vec::push], which might reallocate and thus also move the
-//! contents.
+//! For a type like <code>[Vec]\<T></code>, both possibilities (structural pinning or not) make
+//! sense. A <code>[Vec]\<T></code> with structural pinning could have `get_pin`/`get_pin_mut`
+//! methods to get pinned references to elements. However, it could *not* allow calling
+//! [`pop`][Vec::pop] on a pinned <code>[Vec]\<T></code> because that would move the (structurally
+//! pinned) contents! Nor could it allow [`push`][Vec::push], which might reallocate and thus also
+//! move the contents.
//!
-//! A [`Vec<T>`] without structural pinning could `impl<T> Unpin for Vec<T>`, because the contents
-//! are never pinned and the [`Vec<T>`] itself is fine with being moved as well.
+//! A <code>[Vec]\<T></code> without structural pinning could
+//! <code>impl\<T> [Unpin] for [Vec]\<T></code>, because the contents are never pinned
+//! and the <code>[Vec]\<T></code> itself is fine with being moved as well.
//! At that point pinning just has no effect on the vector at all.
//!
//! In the standard library, pointer types generally do not have structural pinning,
-//! and thus they do not offer pinning projections. This is why `Box<T>: Unpin` holds for all `T`.
-//! It makes sense to do this for pointer types, because moving the `Box<T>`
-//! does not actually move the `T`: the [`Box<T>`] can be freely movable (aka `Unpin`) even if
-//! the `T` is not. In fact, even [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>` and [`Pin`]`<&mut T>` are always
-//! [`Unpin`] themselves, for the same reason: their contents (the `T`) are pinned, but the
-//! pointers themselves can be moved without moving the pinned data. For both [`Box<T>`] and
-//! [`Pin`]`<`[`Box`]`<T>>`, whether the content is pinned is entirely independent of whether the
+//! and thus they do not offer pinning projections. This is why <code>[Box]\<T>: [Unpin]</code>
+//! holds for all `T`. It makes sense to do this for pointer types, because moving the
+//! <code>[Box]\<T></code> does not actually move the `T`: the <code>[Box]\<T></code> can be freely
+//! movable (aka [`Unpin`]) even if the `T` is not. In fact, even <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code> and
+//! <code>[Pin]<[&mut] T></code> are always [`Unpin`] themselves, for the same reason:
+//! their contents (the `T`) are pinned, but the pointers themselves can be moved without moving
+//! the pinned data. For both <code>[Box]\<T></code> and <code>[Pin]<[Box]\<T>></code>,
+//! whether the content is pinned is entirely independent of whether the
//! pointer is pinned, meaning pinning is *not* structural.
//!
//! When implementing a [`Future`] combinator, you will usually need structural pinning
//! for the nested futures, as you need to get pinned references to them to call [`poll`].
//! But if your combinator contains any other data that does not need to be pinned,
//! you can make those fields not structural and hence freely access them with a
-//! mutable reference even when you just have [`Pin`]`<&mut Self>` (such as in your own
+//! mutable reference even when you just have <code>[Pin]<[&mut] Self></code> (such as in your own
//! [`poll`] implementation).
//!
-//! [`Deref`]: crate::ops::Deref
-//! [`DerefMut`]: crate::ops::DerefMut
-//! [`mem::swap`]: crate::mem::swap
-//! [`mem::forget`]: crate::mem::forget
-//! [`Box<T>`]: ../../std/boxed/struct.Box.html
-//! [`Vec<T>`]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html
-//! [`Vec::set_len`]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.set_len
-//! [`Box`]: ../../std/boxed/struct.Box.html
-//! [Vec::pop]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.pop
-//! [Vec::push]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.push
-//! [`Rc`]: ../../std/rc/struct.Rc.html
-//! [`RefCell<T>`]: crate::cell::RefCell
-//! [`drop`]: Drop::drop
-//! [`VecDeque<T>`]: ../../std/collections/struct.VecDeque.html
-//! [`Some(v)`]: Some
-//! [`ptr::write`]: crate::ptr::write
-//! [`Future`]: crate::future::Future
+//! [Deref]: crate::ops::Deref "ops::Deref"
+//! [`Deref`]: crate::ops::Deref "ops::Deref"
+//! [Target]: crate::ops::Deref::Target "ops::Deref::Target"
+//! [`DerefMut`]: crate::ops::DerefMut "ops::DerefMut"
+//! [`mem::swap`]: crate::mem::swap "mem::swap"
+//! [`mem::forget`]: crate::mem::forget "mem::forget"
+//! [Vec]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html "Vec"
+//! [`Vec::set_len`]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.set_len "Vec::set_len"
+//! [Box]: ../../std/boxed/struct.Box.html "Box"
+//! [Vec::pop]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.pop "Vec::pop"
+//! [Vec::push]: ../../std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.push "Vec::push"
+//! [Rc]: ../../std/rc/struct.Rc.html "rc::Rc"
+//! [RefCell]: crate::cell::RefCell "cell::RefCell"
+//! [`drop`]: Drop::drop "Drop::drop"
+//! [VecDeque]: ../../std/collections/struct.VecDeque.html "collections::VecDeque"
+//! [`ptr::write`]: crate::ptr::write "ptr::write"
+//! [`Future`]: crate::future::Future "future::Future"
//! [drop-impl]: #drop-implementation
//! [drop-guarantee]: #drop-guarantee
-//! [`poll`]: crate::future::Future::poll
+//! [`poll`]: crate::future::Future::poll "future::Future::poll"
+//! [&]: ../../std/primitive.reference.html "shared reference"
+//! [&mut]: ../../std/primitive.reference.html "mutable reference"
+//! [`unsafe`]: ../../std/keyword.unsafe.html "keyword unsafe"
#![stable(feature = "pin", since = "1.33.0")]
projects / rustc.git / blobdiff