Change borrowed value when modifying original value - pointers

First of all, here is a simplified version of my code I'm working on:
struct Object {
size: f32
}
impl Object {
fn on_event(&mut self) {
self.size += 1.0;
println!("Object notified. New size: {}.", self.size);
}
}
struct Manager<'a> {
objects: Vec<&'a mut Object>
}
impl<'a> Manager<'a> {
fn add(&mut self, obj: &'a mut Object) {
self.objects.push(obj);
}
fn notify_objects(&mut self) {
for i in range(0u, self.objects.len()) {
let ref mut obj = *self.objects.get_mut(i);
obj.on_event();
}
}
}
fn main() {
let mut obj1 = Object { size: 1.0 };
let mut obj2 = Object { size: 2.0 };
let mut obj3 = Object { size: 3.0 };
let mut manager = Manager { objects: Vec::new() };
manager.add(&mut obj1);
manager.add(&mut obj2);
manager.add(&mut obj3);
obj1.size = 25.0;
println!("before {}", obj1.size); // should print 25
manager.notify_objects();
println!("after {}", obj1.size); should print 26
}
So I like to create mutable Objects and add them to the Manager, but I should be able to modify the original Objects like shown in the code.

Just FYI, although the accepted answer is totally correct, you'll probably encounter many situations where it's not as convenient as simple mutable-borrow-back-from-owner to access an object from another location.
For example, if you're doing some kind of observer pattern where one location is using an object, and somewhere separate is watching the object for state changes and running something if it changes.
In those situations you're probably best off using RefCell (http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.RefCell.html); you can own references to an object in multiple places, and 'try_borrow()' to get a temporary instance to look at in a specific sub scope.
In your example that's perhaps overkill, but as you hit more complex situations, that's the general solution for having 'multiple references' to an object.

Your code does not compile with errors like this:
<anon>:38:5: 38:21 error: cannot assign to `obj1.size` because it is borrowed
<anon>:38 obj1.size = 25.0;
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<anon>:34:22: 34:26 note: borrow of `obj1.size` occurs here
<anon>:34 manager.add(&mut obj1);
The problem is, you can't modify an object which has been borrowed (that's exactly the semantics of "borrow" word, isn't it?). When you take a mutable reference of obj1 and put it into the structure, you're effectively blocking all access to obj1 until this mutable reference goes out of scope. But because it haven't done that yet when you're trying to reassign obj1.size, you're getting this error.
This does work:
fn main() {
let mut obj1 = Object { size: 25.0 };
let mut obj2 = Object { size: 2.0 };
let mut obj3 = Object { size: 3.0 };
obj1.size = 25.0;
println!("before {}", obj1.size); // should print 25
{
let mut manager = Manager { objects: Vec::new() };
manager.add(&mut obj1);
manager.add(&mut obj2);
manager.add(&mut obj3);
manager.notify_objects();
}
println!("after {}", obj1.size); // should print 26
}
Here manager appears in its own scope. Because that scope is strictly between accesses to obj1, it works fine.
If you absolutely must access these data while it is borrowed, you have to go through the structure itself:
fn main() {
let mut obj1 = Object { size: 1.0 };
let mut obj2 = Object { size: 2.0 };
let mut obj3 = Object { size: 3.0 };
let mut manager = Manager { objects: Vec::new() };
manager.add(&mut obj1);
manager.add(&mut obj2);
manager.add(&mut obj3);
{
let obj1 = manager.objects.get_mut(0); // returns mutable reference
obj1.size = 25.0;
println!("before {}", obj1.size); // should print 25
}
manager.notify_objects();
{
let obj1 = manager.objects.get(0); // returns immutable reference
println!("after {}", obj1.size); // should print 26
}
}

Related

Get Box Pointer from reference in rust

Say I have a function like this:
fn foo(item: &FooType) -> Box<FooType>{
Box::new(item)
}
I get the following error:
mismatched types: expected enum FooType, found &FooType
I'm assuming I need to do some reference/boxing and lifetime magic, but as a rust beginner, I'm not 100% sure how to get this working.
I think there is no definitive answer since it depends on what you expect.
If you want to obtain a heap-allocated clone of something you want to keep usable, then cloning in foo1() can help.
A better solution could be to pass a value not a reference, as in foo2(), because this way the call site can decide if a clone is necessary or if moving the original value into the box is enough.
You may also want the box to hold the reference instead of the value, as in foo3(), but this is like a code-smell to me (many indirections that make reasoning about lifetimes very complicated).
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
struct FooType {
value: usize,
}
fn foo1(item: &FooType) -> Box<FooType> {
Box::new(item.clone())
}
fn foo2(item: FooType) -> Box<FooType> {
Box::new(item)
}
fn foo3(item: &FooType) -> Box<&FooType> {
Box::new(item)
}
fn main() {
let ft_a = FooType { value: 12 };
let bft_a = foo1(&ft_a);
println!("bft_a: {:?}", bft_a);
println!("ft_a: {:?}", ft_a);
println!("~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~");
let ft_b = FooType { value: 34 };
let bft_b = foo2(ft_b);
println!("bft_b: {:?}", bft_b);
// println!("ft_b: {:?}", ft_b); // borrow of moved value: `ft_b`
println!("ft_b is consumed");
println!("~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~");
let ft_c = FooType { value: 56 };
let bft_c = foo2(ft_c.clone());
println!("bft_c: {:?}", bft_c);
println!("ft_c: {:?}", ft_c);
println!("~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~");
let ft_d = FooType { value: 78 };
let bft_d = foo3(&ft_d);
println!("bft_d: {:?}", bft_d);
println!("ft_d: {:?}", ft_d);
}
/*
bft_a: FooType { value: 12 }
ft_a: FooType { value: 12 }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bft_b: FooType { value: 34 }
ft_b is consumed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bft_c: FooType { value: 56 }
ft_c: FooType { value: 56 }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bft_d: FooType { value: 78 }
ft_d: FooType { value: 78 }
*/
The compiler is complaining because in the function's signature you specified Box<FooType> as the return type, and you are giving it a Box<&FooType> when you wrap the ìtem in a Box.
Change the function's signature so that it receives a FooType rather than a reference to it like this:
fn foo(item: FooType) -> Box<FooType>{
Box::new(item)
}

Raw Pointers not producing desired effects

#![feature(ptr_internals)]
use core::ptr::Unique;
struct PtrWrapper {
id: usize,
self_reference: Unique<Self>
}
impl PtrWrapper {
fn new() -> Self {
let dummy = unsafe {Unique::new_unchecked(std::ptr::null_mut::<PtrWrapper>())};
let mut ret = Self {id:0, self_reference: dummy };
let new_ptr = &mut ret as *mut Self;
debug_print(new_ptr);
ret.self_reference = Unique::new(new_ptr).unwrap();
debug_print(ret.self_reference.as_ptr());
ret
}
fn get_id(&self) -> usize {
self.id.clone()
}
}
fn main() {
println!("START");
let mut wrapper = PtrWrapper::new();
wrapper.id = 10;
let ptr = wrapper.self_reference.as_ptr();
unsafe {
(*ptr).id += 30;
println!("The next print isn't 40? Garbage bytes");
debug_print(ptr);
let tmp = &mut wrapper as *mut PtrWrapper;
(*tmp).id += 500;
println!("The next print isn't 540?");
debug_print(tmp);
}
println!("Below debug_print is proof of undefined behavior! Garbage bytes\n");
debug_print(wrapper.self_reference.as_ptr());
debug_print(&mut wrapper as *mut PtrWrapper);
debug_print_move(wrapper);
println!("Why is the assertion below false?");
assert_eq!(unsafe{(*ptr).id}, 540);
}
fn debug_print_move(mut wrapper: PtrWrapper) {
debug_print(&mut wrapper as *mut PtrWrapper);
}
fn debug_print(ptr: *mut PtrWrapper) {
println!("Address: {:p}", ptr);
println!("ID: {}\n", unsafe {(*ptr).get_id()});
}
The above code should compile fine in rust playground with a nightly selected version. Pay attention to the console outputs.
My question is: Why are the intermittent results not equal to the value I expect them to equal? In the case below, there is no multiple access simultaneously (single threaded), so there aren't any data races. There are, however, implicitly multiple mutable version of the object existing on the stack.
As expected, the memory location of the pointer changes with the tmp variable as well as when the entire object is moved into debug_print_move. It appears that using the tmp pointer works as expected (i.e., adds 500), however, the pointers which are obtained from the Unique<PtrWrapper> object seems to point to irrelevant locations in memory.
As Stargateur recommended, in order to solve this problem we need to Pin the object which needs to be self-referential. I ended up using:
pin-api = "0.2.1"
In cargo.toml instead of std::pin::pin. Next, I set this up the struct and its implementation:
#![feature(ptr_internals, pin_into_inner, optin_builtin_traits)]
// not available on rust-playground
extern crate pin_api;
use pin_api::{boxed::PinBox, marker::Unpin, mem::Pin};
///test
pub struct PtrWrapper<T>
where
T: std::fmt::Debug,
{
///tmp
pub obj: T,
/// pinned object
pub self_reference: *mut Self,
}
impl<T> !Unpin for PtrWrapper<T> where T: std::fmt::Debug {}
impl<T> PtrWrapper<T>
where
T: std::fmt::Debug,
{
///test
pub fn new(obj: T) -> Self {
Self {
obj,
self_reference: std::ptr::null_mut(),
}
}
///test
pub fn init(mut self: Pin<PtrWrapper<T>>) {
let mut this: &mut PtrWrapper<T> = unsafe { Pin::get_mut(&mut self) };
this.self_reference = this as *mut Self;
}
/// Debug print
pub fn print_obj(&self) {
println!("Obj value: {:#?}", self.obj);
}
}
Finally, the test function:
fn main2() {
unsafe {
println!("START");
let mut wrapper = PinBox::new(PtrWrapper::new(10));
wrapper.as_pin().init();
let m = wrapper.as_pin().self_reference;
(*m).obj += 30;
println!("The next print is 40");
debug_print(m);
let tmp = wrapper.as_pin().self_reference;
(*tmp).obj += 500;
println!("The next print is 540?");
debug_print(tmp);
debug_print(wrapper.self_reference);
let cpy = PinBox::get_mut(&mut wrapper);
debug_print_move(cpy);
std::mem::drop(wrapper);
println!("Works!");
assert_eq!(unsafe { (*m).obj }, 540);
}
}
fn debug_print_move<T>(mut wrapper: &mut PtrWrapper<T>)
where
T: std::fmt::Debug,
{
debug_print(&mut *wrapper as *mut PtrWrapper<T>);
}
fn debug_print<T>(ptr: *mut PtrWrapper<T>)
where
T: std::fmt::Debug,
{
println!("Address: {:p}", ptr);
unsafe { (*ptr).print_obj() };
}
On a side note, pin-api does not exist on rust playground. You could still use std::pin::Pin, however it would require further customization.

What is an efficient way to reset all values of a Vec<T> without resizing it?

I can use resize, but it seems like overkill because I do not need to resize the vector, just modify its values. Using a new variable is not an option, since this vector is actually a field in a struct.
I guess that resize is efficient, and probably the answer to my question, but its name does not carry the meaning of resetting the values without modifying the size.
In C, I would use memset (in opposition to realloc).
Illustration of my question:
let my_vec_size = 42;
let mut my_vec = Vec::new(); // 'my_vec' will always have a size of 42
my_vec.resize(my_vec_size, false); // Set the size to 42, and all values to false
// [ ... ] piece of code where the values in 'my_vec' will be modified, checked, etc ...
// now I need to reuse my_vec.
// Possibility A -> use resize again
my_vec.resize(my_vec_size, false);
// Possibility B -> iterate on the vector to modify its values (long and laborious)
for item in my_vec.iter_mut() {
*item = false;
}
// Possibility C ?
The most efficient way in general is to reset the values themselves (aka B):
for item in &mut my_vec { *item = false; }
For booleans it is not immediately obvious, however for a String it is important to preserve the allocated buffer of each element:
for item in &mut my_vec { item.clear(); }
If discarding and recreating the elements of the Vec is cheap, such as the case of the boolean or if the elements will be overwritten anyway, then a combination of clear and resize is easier:
my_vec.clear();
my_vec.resize(my_vec_size, false);
resize by itself will not work to "reset" values:
const LEN: usize = 3;
fn main() {
let mut values = vec![false; LEN];
values[0] = true;
values.resize(LEN, false);
println!("{:?}", values); // [true, false, false]
}
Just use a for loop:
for v in &mut values {
*v = false;
}
println!("{:?}", values); // [false, false, false]
If that sight offends you, write an extension trait:
trait ResetExt<T: Copy> {
fn reset(&mut self, val: T);
}
impl<T: Copy> ResetExt<T> for [T] {
fn reset(&mut self, value: T) {
for v in self {
*v = value;
}
}
}
values.reset(false);
println!("{:?}", values); // [false, false, false]
The trait idea can be extended so that each value knows how to reset itself, if that makes sense for your situation:
trait ResetExt {
fn reset(&mut self);
}
impl<T: ResetExt> ResetExt for [T] {
fn reset(&mut self) {
for v in self {
v.reset();
}
}
}
impl ResetExt for bool {
fn reset(&mut self) {
*self = false;
}
}
impl ResetExt for String {
fn reset(&mut self) {
self.clear();
}
}
values.reset();
println!("{:?}", values); // [false, false, false]
In C, I would use memset
std::ptr::write_bytes uses memset internally, so you can (almost) precisely translate this code. An example from the Rust documentation:
let mut vec = vec![0u32; 4];
unsafe {
let vec_ptr = vec.as_mut_ptr();
ptr::write_bytes(vec_ptr, 0xfe, 2);
}
assert_eq!(vec, [0xfefefefe, 0xfefefefe, 0, 0]);

How to check if two variables point to the same object in memory?

For example:
struct Foo<'a> { bar: &'a str }
fn main() {
let foo_instance = Foo { bar: "bar" };
let some_vector: Vec<&Foo> = vec![&foo_instance];
assert!(*some_vector[0] == foo_instance);
}
I want to check if foo_instance references the same instance as *some_vector[0], but I can't do this ...
I don't want to know if the two instances are equal; I want to check if the variables point to the same instance in the memory
Is it possible to do that?
There is the function ptr::eq:
use std::ptr;
struct Foo<'a> {
bar: &'a str,
}
fn main() {
let foo_instance = Foo { bar: "bar" };
let some_vector: Vec<&Foo> = vec![&foo_instance];
assert!(ptr::eq(some_vector[0], &foo_instance));
}
Before this was stabilized in Rust 1.17.0, you could perform a cast to *const T:
assert!(some_vector[0] as *const Foo == &foo_instance as *const Foo);
It will check if the references point to the same place in the memory.

How do I process a range in slices in Rust?

I understand that the preferred way to iterate in Rust is through the for var in (range) syntax, but sometimes I'd like to work on more than one of the elements in that range at a time.
From a Ruby perspective, I'm trying to find a way of doing (1..100).each_slice(5) do |this_slice| in Rust.
I'm trying things like
for mut segment_start in (segment_size..max_val).step_by(segment_size) {
let this_segment = segment_start..(segment_start + segment_size).iter().take(segment_size);
}
but I keep getting errors that suggest I'm barking up the wrong type tree. The docs aren't helpful either--they just don't contain this use case.
What's the Rust way to do this?
Use chunks (or chunks_mut if you need mutability):
fn main() {
let things = [5, 4, 3, 2, 1];
for slice in things.chunks(2) {
println!("{:?}", slice);
}
}
Outputs:
[5, 4]
[3, 2]
[1]
The easiest way to combine this with a Range would be to collect the range to a Vec first (which dereferences to a slice):
fn main() {
let things: Vec<_> = (1..100).collect();
for slice in things.chunks(5) {
println!("{:?}", slice);
}
}
Another solution that is pure-iterator would be to use Itertools::chunks_lazy:
extern crate itertools;
use itertools::Itertools;
fn main() {
for chunk in &(1..100).chunks_lazy(5) {
for val in chunk {
print!("{}, ", val);
}
println!("");
}
}
Which suggests a similar solution that only requires the standard library:
fn main() {
let mut range = (1..100).peekable();
while range.peek().is_some() {
for value in range.by_ref().take(5) {
print!("{}, ", value);
}
println!("");
}
}
One trick is that Ruby and Rust have different handling here, mostly centered around efficiency.
In Ruby Enumerable can create new arrays to stuff values in without worrying about ownership and return a new array each time (check with this_slice.object_id).
In Rust, allocating a new vector each time would be pretty unusual. Additionally, you can't easily return a reference to a vector that the iterator holds due to complicated lifetime concerns.
A solution that's very similar to Ruby's is:
fn main() {
let mut range = (1..100).peekable();
while range.peek().is_some() {
let chunk: Vec<_> = range.by_ref().take(5).collect();
println!("{:?}", chunk);
}
}
Which could be wrapped up in a new iterator that hides the details:
use std::iter::Peekable;
struct InefficientChunks<I>
where I: Iterator
{
iter: Peekable<I>,
size: usize,
}
impl<I> Iterator for InefficientChunks<I>
where I: Iterator
{
type Item = Vec<I::Item>;
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
if self.iter.peek().is_some() {
Some(self.iter.by_ref().take(self.size).collect())
} else {
None
}
}
}
trait Awesome: Iterator + Sized {
fn inefficient_chunks(self, size: usize) -> InefficientChunks<Self> {
InefficientChunks {
iter: self.peekable(),
size: size,
}
}
}
impl<I> Awesome for I where I: Iterator {}
fn main() {
for chunk in (1..100).inefficient_chunks(5) {
println!("{:?}", chunk);
}
}
Collecting into a vec can easily kill your performance. An approach similar to in the question is perfectly fine.
fn chunk_range(range: Range<usize>, chunk_size: usize) -> impl Iterator<Item=Range<usize>> {
range.clone().step_by(chunk_size).map(move |block_start| {
let block_end = (block_start + chunk_size).min(range.end);
block_start..block_end
})
}

Resources