Skip to content

Announce if and match in constants on nightly #461

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Nov 25, 2019
Merged
Changes from 10 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
156 changes: 156 additions & 0 deletions posts/inside-rust/2019-11-23-const-if-match.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
---
layout: post
title: "`if` and `match` in constants on nightly rust"
author: Dylan MacKenzie
team: WG const-eval <https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval>
---

**TLDR; `if` and `match` are now usable in constants on the latest nightly.**

As a result, you can now write code like the following and have it execute at
compile-time:

```rust
static PLATFORM: &str = if cfg!(unix) {
"unix"
} else if cfg!(windows) {
"windows"
} else {
"other"
};

const _: () = assert!(std::mem::size_of::<usize>() == 8, "Only 64-bit platforms are supported");
```

`if` and `match` can also be used in the body of a `const fn`:

```rust
const fn gcd(a: u32, b: u32) -> u32 {
match (a, b) {
(x, 0) | (0, x) => x,

(x, y) if x % 2 == 0 && y % 2 == 0 => 2*gcd(x/2, y/2),
(x, y) | (y, x) if x % 2 == 0 => gcd(x/2, y),

(x, y) if x < y => gcd((y-x)/2, x),
(x, y) => gcd((x-y)/2, y),
}
}
```

## What exactly is going on here?

The following expressions,
- `match`
- `if` and `if let`
- `&&` and `||`

can now appear in any of the following contexts,
- `const fn` bodies
- `const` and associated `const` initializers
- `static` and `static mut` initializers
- array initializers
- const generics (EXPERIMENTAL)

if `#![feature(const_if_match)]` is enabled for your crate.

You may have noticed that the short-circuiting logic operators, `&&` and
`||`, were already legal in a `const` or `static`. This was accomplished by
translating them to their non-short-circuiting equivalents, `&` and `|`
respectively. Enabling the feature gate will turn off this hack and make `&&`
and `||` behave as you would expect.

As a side-effect of these changes, the `assert` and `debug_assert` macros
become usable in a const context if `#![feature(const_panic)]` is also
enabled. However, the other assert macros (e.g., `assert_eq`,
`debug_assert_ne`) remain forbidden, since they need to call `Debug::fmt` on
their arguments.

Also forbidden are looping constructs, `while`, `for`, and `loop`, which will
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe also note that for loops need trait methods, too and that you can emulate loops with recursion as shown above

be [feature-gated separately][52000], and the `?` operator, which calls
`From::from` on the value inside the `Err` variant. The design for
`const` trait methods is still being discussed.

[52000]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52000

## What's next?

This change will allow a great number of standard library functions to be made
`const`. You can help with this process! To get started, here's a [list of
numeric functions][const-int] that can be constified with little effort.
Conversion to a `const fn` requires two steps. First, `const` is added to a
function definition along with a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` attribute. This
allows nightly users to call it in a const context. Then, after a period of
experimentation, the attribute is removed and the constness of that function is
stabilized. See [#61635] for an example of the first step and [#64028] for an
example of the second.

Personally, I've looked forward to this feature for a long time, and I can't
wait to start playing with it. If you feel the same, I would greatly
appreciate if you tested the limits of this feature! Try to sneak `Cell`s and
types with `Drop` impls into places they shouldn't be allowed, blow up the
stack with poorly implemented recursive functions (see `gcd` above), and let
us know if something goes horribly wrong.

[const-int]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53718
[#61635]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61635
[#64028]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/64028

## What took you so long?

[Miri], which rust uses under the hood for compile-time function evaluation,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not quite right. Both const eval and miri use the miri engine. The miri engine is essentially a VM that runs MIR as "bytecode". But it's right in the sense that miri showcases what you can do when you take off the safety padding.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So change "Miri" to "miri engine"? Also, how do we capitalize miri at the start of a sentence?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Uh. I think it.s even supposed to be capitalized in the middle of sentences. I do forget. cc @solson

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've typically used "Miri" when referring to the project and miri when referring to the binary or crate name, but I probably haven't been consistent myself.

has been capable of this for a while now. However, rust needs to statically
guarantee certain properties about variables in a `const`, such as whether
they allow for interior mutability or whether they have a `Drop`
implementation that needs to be called. For example, we must reject the
following code since it would result in a `const` being mutable at runtime!

[Miri]: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri

```rust
const CELL: &std::cell::Cell<i32> = &std::cell::Cell::new(42); // Not allowed...

fn main() {
CELL.set(0);
println!("{}", CELL.get()); // otherwise this could print `0`!!!
}
```

However, it is sometimes okay for a `const` to contain a *type* that allows
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's also OK for constants to have their base value have interior mutability since each use site creates its own copy of it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"a const to contain a reference to a type that..."?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea that's good

interior mutability, as long as we can prove that the actual *value* of that
type does not. This is particularly useful for `enum`s with a "unit variant"
(e.g., `Option::None`).

```rust
const NO_CELL: Option<&std::cell::Cell<i32>> = None; // OK
```

A more detailed (but non-normative) treatment of the rules [for `Drop`][drop]
and [for interior mutability][interior-mut] in a const context can be found
on the [`const-eval`] repo.

It is not trivial to guarantee properties about the value of a variable when
complex control flow such as loops and conditionals is involved. Implementing
this feature required extending the existing dataflow framework in rust so
that we could properly track the value of each local across the control-flow
graph. At the moment, the analysis is very conservative, especially when values are
moved in and out of compound data types. For example, the following will not
compile, even when the feature gate is enabled.

```rust
const fn imprecise() -> Vec<i32> {
let tuple: (Vec<i32>) = (Vec::new(),);
tuple.0
}
```

Even though the `Vec` created by `Vec::new` will never actually be dropped
inside the `const fn`, we don't detect that all fields of `tuple` have been moved
out of, and thus conservatively assume that the drop impl for `tuple` will run.
While this particular case is trivial, there are other, more complex ones that
would require a more expensive solution. It is an open question how precise we
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe note that the solution would make cases not needing it also more expensive

want to be here.

[`const-eval`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval
[drop]: https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/static.md#drop
[interior-mut]: https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/const.md#2-interior-mutability