I'm having trouble initializing a fixed length array. My attempts so far all result in the same "use of possibly uninitialized variable: foo_array" error:
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Foo { a: u32, b: u32 }
impl Default for Foo {
fn default() -> Foo { Foo{a:1, b:2} }
}
pub fn main() {
let mut foo_array: [Foo; 10];
// Do something here to in-place initialize foo_array?
for f in foo_array.iter() {
println!("{:?}", f);
}
}
error[E0381]: use of possibly uninitialized variable: `foo_array`
--> src/main.rs:13:14
|
13 | for f in foo_array.iter() {
| ^^^^^^^^^ use of possibly uninitialized `foo_array`
I implemented the Default trait, but Rust does not seem to call this by default akin to a C++ constructor.
What is the proper way to initialize a fixed length array? I'd like to do an efficient in-place initialization rather than some sort of copy.
Related: Why is the Copy trait needed for default (struct valued) array initialization?
Related: Is there a way to not have to initialize arrays twice?
The safe but somewhat inefficient solution:
#[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug)]
struct Foo {
a: u32,
b: u32,
}
fn main() {
let mut foo_array = [Foo { a: 10, b: 10 }; 10];
}
Since you're specifically asking for a solution without copies:
use std::mem::MaybeUninit;
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Foo {
a: u32,
b: u32,
}
// We're just implementing Drop to prove there are no unnecessary copies.
impl Drop for Foo {
fn drop(&mut self) {
println!("Destructor running for a Foo");
}
}
pub fn main() {
let array = {
// Create an array of uninitialized values.
let mut array: [MaybeUninit<Foo>; 10] = unsafe { MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init() };
for (i, element) in array.iter_mut().enumerate() {
let foo = Foo { a: i as u32, b: 0 };
*element = MaybeUninit::new(foo);
}
unsafe { std::mem::transmute::<_, [Foo; 10]>(array) }
};
for element in array.iter() {
println!("{:?}", element);
}
}
This is recommended by the documentation of MaybeUninit.
You can use the arrayvec crate:
Cargo.toml
[package]
name = "initialize_array"
version = "0.1.0"
edition = "2018"
[dependencies]
arrayvec = "0.7.2"
src/main.rs
use arrayvec::ArrayVec;
use std::iter;
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Foo {
a: u32,
b: u32,
}
fn main() {
let foo_array: [Foo; 10] = iter::repeat(Foo { a: 10, b: 10 })
.take(10)
.collect::<ArrayVec<_, 10>>()
.into_inner()
.unwrap_or_else(|_| unreachable!());
}
The easiest way is to derive Copy on your type and initialize the array with that, copying the element N times:
#[derive(Copy)]
struct Foo {
a: u32,
b: u32,
}
let mut foo_array = [Foo { a: 1, b: 2 }; 10];
If you want to avoid copying, there are a couple options. You can use the Default trait:
let mut foo_array: [Foo; 10] = Default::default();
However, this is limited to arrays up to 32 elements. With const generics, it is now possible for the standard library to provide Default for all arrays. However, this would be a backward incompatible change for subtle reasons that are being worked on.
For now, you can take advantage of the fact that const values are also allowed in array repetition expressions:
const FOO: Foo = Foo { a: 1, b: 2 };
let mut foo_array = [FOO; 10];
If you're on nightly, you can use array::map:
#![feature(array_map)]
let mut foo_array = [(); 10].map(|_| Foo::default())
Related
This rust code doesn't work. Is there any detailed explanation for why?
It gives the error "cannot return reference to temporary value"
trait NonInherited {
fn get_type(&self) -> &str;
}
struct Inherited {
val: usize,
}
impl NonInherited for Inherited {
fn get_type(&self) -> &str {
return "inherited";
}
}
fn helper(list: &mut [usize; 2]) -> &'static dyn NonInherited {
// works
//return &Inherited {val: 3};
// does not work
return &Inherited {val: list[1]}; // Error is here
}
fn main() {
let mut a: [usize; 2] = [1, 7];
println!("{}", helper(&mut a).get_type());
}
My understanding is that Inherited { val: 3 } is a constant struct expression that is evaluated during compilation, however, Inherited { val: list[1] } is dynamic which is evaluated during runtime.
As described in Rust reference on Constant Evaluation, constant expressions do not cause any drop() to be run, thus, its value is not temporary.
The problem here is that the Inherited struct is created on the stack in the function helper, and then a reference to this stack-resident object is being returned. That's a problem because the lifetime of the Inherited struct is only for the scope of the helper function.
You can fix this by returning the created struct itself instead of a reference to it. Below is a simple working example, with some of the type names changed for clarity. Notice that the list variable does not need to be mut.
trait SomeTrait {
fn get_type(&self) -> &str;
}
struct SomeStruct {
val: usize,
}
impl SomeTrait for SomeStruct {
fn get_type(&self) -> &str {
return "overridden";
}
}
fn helper(list: &[usize; 2]) -> impl SomeTrait {
// works
return SomeStruct {val: list[1]};
}
fn main() {
let a: [usize; 2] = [1, 7];
let b = helper(&a);
println!("Type is {}", b.get_type());
}
I am practicing rust and decided to create a Matrix ops/factorization project.
Basically I want to be able to process the underlying vector in multiple threads. Since I will be providing each thread non-overlapping indexes (which may or may not be contiguous) and the threads will be joined before the end of whatever function created them, there is no need for a lock /synchronization.
I know that there are several crates that can do this, but I would like to know if there is a relatively idiomatic crate-free way to implement it on my own.
The best I could come up with is (simplified the code a bit):
use std::thread;
//This represents the Matrix
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct MainStruct {
pub data: Vec<f64>,
}
//This is the bit that will be shared by the threads,
//ideally it should have its lifetime tied to that of MainStruct
//but i have no idea how to make phantomdata work in this case
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct SliceTest {
pub data: Vec<SubSlice>,
}
//This struct is to hide *mut f64 to allow it to be shared to other threads
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct SubSlice {
pub data: *mut f64,
}
impl MainStruct {
pub fn slice(&mut self) -> (SliceTest, SliceTest) {
let mut out_vec_odd: Vec<SubSlice> = Vec::new();
let mut out_vec_even: Vec<SubSlice> = Vec::new();
unsafe {
let ptr = self.data.as_mut_ptr();
for i in 0..self.data.len() {
let ptr_to_push = ptr.add(i);
//Non contiguous idxs
if i % 2 == 0 {
out_vec_even.push(SubSlice{data:ptr_to_push});
} else {
out_vec_odd.push(SubSlice{data:ptr_to_push});
}
}
}
(SliceTest{data: out_vec_even}, SliceTest{data: out_vec_odd})
}
}
impl SubSlice {
pub fn set(&self, val: f64) {
unsafe {*(self.data) = val;}
}
}
unsafe impl Send for SliceTest {}
unsafe impl Send for SubSlice {}
fn main() {
let mut maindata = MainStruct {
data: vec![0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0],
};
let (mut outvec1, mut outvec2) = maindata.slice();
let mut threads = Vec::new();
threads.push(
thread::spawn(move || {
for i in 0..outvec1.data.len() {
outvec1.data[i].set(999.9);
}
})
);
threads.push(
thread::spawn(move || {
for i in 0..outvec2.data.len() {
outvec2.data[i].set(999.9);
}
})
);
for handles in threads {
handles.join();
}
println!("maindata = {:?}", maindata.data);
}
EDIT:
Following kmdreko suggestion below, got the code to work exactly how I wanted it without using unsafe code, yay!
Of course in terms of performance it may be cheaper to copy the f64 slices than to create mutable reference vectors unless your struct is filled with other structs instead of f64
extern crate crossbeam;
use crossbeam::thread;
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Matrix {
data: Vec<f64>,
m: usize, //number of rows
n: usize, //number of cols
}
...
impl Matrix {
...
pub fn get_data_mut(&mut self) -> &mut Vec<f64> {
&mut self.data
}
pub fn calculate_idx(max_cols: usize, i: usize, j: usize) -> usize {
let actual_idx = j + max_cols * i;
actual_idx
}
//Get individual mutable references for contiguous indexes (rows)
pub fn get_all_row_slices(&mut self) -> Vec<Vec<&mut f64>> {
let max_cols = self.max_cols();
let max_rows = self.max_rows();
let inner_data = self.get_data_mut().chunks_mut(max_cols);
let mut out_vec: Vec<Vec<&mut f64>> = Vec::with_capacity(max_rows);
for chunk in inner_data {
let row_vec = chunk.iter_mut().collect();
out_vec.push(row_vec);
}
out_vec
}
//Get mutable references for disjoint indexes (columns)
pub fn get_all_col_slices(&mut self) -> Vec<Vec<&mut f64>> {
let max_cols = self.max_cols();
let max_rows = self.max_rows();
let inner_data = self.get_data_mut().chunks_mut(max_cols);
let mut out_vec: Vec<Vec<&mut f64>> = Vec::with_capacity(max_cols);
for _ in 0..max_cols {
out_vec.push(Vec::with_capacity(max_rows));
}
let mut inner_idx = 0;
for chunk in inner_data {
let row_vec_it = chunk.iter_mut();
for elem in row_vec_it {
out_vec[inner_idx].push(elem);
inner_idx += 1;
}
inner_idx = 0;
}
out_vec
}
...
}
fn test_multithreading() {
fn test(in_vec: Vec<&mut f64>) {
for elem in in_vec {
*elem = 33.3;
}
}
fn launch_task(mat: &mut Matrix, f: fn(Vec<&mut f64>)) {
let test_vec = mat.get_all_row_slices();
thread::scope(|s| {
for elem in test_vec.into_iter() {
s.spawn(move |_| {
println!("Spawning thread...");
f(elem);
});
}
}).unwrap();
}
let rows = 4;
let cols = 3;
//new function code omitted, returns Result<Self, MatrixError>
let mut mat = Matrix::new(rows, cols).unwrap()
launch_task(&mut mat, test);
for i in 0..rows {
for j in 0..cols {
//Requires index trait implemented for matrix
assert_eq!(mat[(i, j)], 33.3);
}
}
}
This API is unsound. Since there is no lifetime annotation binding SliceTest and SubSlice to the MainStruct, they can be preserved after the data has been destroyed and if used would result in use-after-free errors.
Its easy to make it safe though; you can use .iter_mut() to get distinct mutable references to your elements:
pub fn slice(&mut self) -> (Vec<&mut f64>, Vec<&mut f64>) {
let mut out_vec_even = vec![];
let mut out_vec_odd = vec![];
for (i, item_ref) in self.data.iter_mut().enumerate() {
if i % 2 == 0 {
out_vec_even.push(item_ref);
} else {
out_vec_odd.push(item_ref);
}
}
(out_vec_even, out_vec_odd)
}
However, this surfaces another problem: thread::spawn cannot hold references to local variables. The threads created are allowed to live beyond the scope they're created in, so even though you did .join() them, you aren't required to. This was a potential issue in your original code as well, just the compiler couldn't warn about it.
There's no easy way to solve this. You'd need to use a non-referential way to use data on the other threads, but that would be using Arc, which doesn't allow mutating its data, so you'd have to resort to a Mutex, which is what you've tried to avoid.
I would suggest reaching for scope from the crossbeam crate, which does allow you to spawn threads that reference local data. I know you've wanted to avoid using crates, but this is the best solution in my opinion.
See a working version on the playground.
See:
How to get multiple mutable references to elements in a Vec?
Can you specify a non-static lifetime for threads?
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.
This question already has an answer here:
Error while trying to borrow 2 fields from a struct wrapped in RefCell
(1 answer)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have a struct with two vectors that is passed through a function while in a Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>.
pub struct TwoArrays {
pub a: Vec<i32>,
pub b: Vec<i32>,
}
fn add_arrays(mut foo: Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>) {
let mut f = foo.lock().unwrap();
//Loop A: compiles
for i in 0..f.a.len() {
for j in 0..f.b.len() {
f.b[j] += f.a[i];
}
}
//Loop B: does not compile
for i in f.a.iter() {
for j in 0..f.b.len() {
f.b[j] += i;
}
}
}
When I make a loop that uses an iterator, with another loop writing inside(Loop B), the compiler complains:
error[E0502]: cannot borrow `f` as mutable because it is also borrowed as immutable
Loop A Compiles.
Why is there a immutable borrow on f?
Can I make it only borrow each array individually? That is, a mutable borrow of f.b and a immutable borrow of f.a?
Why does this not happen when I pass TwoArrays directly? It only happens when I pass it in as an Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>
When you unwrap the LockResult you get a MutexGuard, and not directly a TwoArrays. You can use it as if it was a TwoArrays because it implements Deref and DerefMut.
When you try to write 2 loops, you try to use both deref and deref_mut at once: that's impossible:
pub struct TwoArrays {
pub a: Vec<i32>,
pub b: Vec<i32>,
}
fn add_arrays(mut foo: Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>) {
let mut f = foo.lock().unwrap();
//Loop B: does not compile
for i in f.a.iter() {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Implicit call to `deref` here.
for j in 0..f.b.len() {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~ Another implicit call to `deref` here.
f.b[j] += i;
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Implicit call to `deref_mut` here.
}
}
}
If you deref_mut once before doing the loops, everything works fine:
use std::{sync::{Arc, Mutex}, ops::DerefMut};
pub struct TwoArrays {
pub a: Vec<i32>,
pub b: Vec<i32>,
}
fn add_arrays(foo: &mut Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>) {
let mut mutex_guard = foo.lock().unwrap();
let real_two_arrays = mutex_guard.deref_mut();
for i in &mut real_two_arrays.a {
for j in &real_two_arrays.b {
*i += *j;
}
}
}
You can access to two vector in a struct like following:
use std::mem;
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct TwoArrays {
pub a: Vec<i32>,
pub b: Vec<i32>,
}
fn add_arrays(mut foo: TwoArrays) {
let a = foo.a.clone();
let mut b = foo.b.clone();
for i in a.iter() {
let mut index = 0;
for _j in b.iter_mut() {
let mut new_value = i.clone() + foo.b[index as usize].clone();
mem::swap(&mut foo.b[index as usize], &mut new_value);
index = index + 1;
}
}
println!("Arrays A: {:?}", &foo.a);
println!("Arrays A: {:?}", &foo.b);
}
fn main() {
let a = vec![1i32, 2i32, 3i32];
let b = vec![4i32, 5i32, 6i32];
let two_arrays = TwoArrays { a, b };
// let foo = Arc::new(Mutex::new(two_arrays));
add_arrays(two_arrays);
}
Playground
Why is there an immutable borrow for f?
Because you tried to iterate it with iter() not the iter_mut()
And why does this not happen when I pass TwoArrays directly? It only happens when I pass it in as an Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>
You can pass it as naked struct without the need of Arc<Mutex<>> with the sample code.
If you insist on using Arc<Mutex<>> to pass the same object around with an atomic reference you can change the function signature to the following:
fn add_arrays(mut foo: Arc<Mutex<TwoArrays>>)
And you need to lock() and get that reference from the Arc with following:
let foo = foo.lock().unwrap();
Playground With Arc Usage
I have a structure that looks somewhat like this:
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>>>,
}
I can easily get a lock on the mutex and query the underlying HashMap:
let d = s.data.lock().unwrap();
let v = d.get(&1).unwrap();
println!("{:?}", v);
Now I want to make a method to encapsulate the querying, so I write something like this:
impl MyStruct {
pub fn get_data_for(&self, i: &i32) -> &Vec<i32> {
let d = self.data.lock().unwrap();
d.get(i).unwrap()
}
}
This fails to compile because I'm trying to return a reference to the data under a Mutex:
error: `d` does not live long enough
--> <anon>:30:9
|
30 | d.get(i).unwrap()
| ^
|
note: reference must be valid for the anonymous lifetime #1 defined on the block at 28:53...
--> <anon>:28:54
|
28 | pub fn get_data_for(&self, i: &i32) -> &Vec<i32> {
| ^
note: ...but borrowed value is only valid for the block suffix following statement 0 at 29:42
--> <anon>:29:43
|
29 | let d = self.data.lock().unwrap();
| ^
I can fix it by wrapping the HashMap values in an Arc, but it looks ugly (Arc in Arc) and complicates the code:
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<i32, Arc<Vec<i32>>>>>,
}
What is the best way to approach this? Is it possible to make a method that does what I want, without modifying the data structure?
Full example code.
The parking_lot crate provides an implementation of Mutexes that's better on many accounts than the one in std. Among the goodies is MutexGuard::map, which implements an interface similar to owning_ref's.
use std::sync::Arc;
use parking_lot::{Mutex, MutexGuard, MappedMutexGuard};
use std::collections::HashMap;
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>>>,
}
impl MyStruct {
pub fn get_data_for(&self, i: &i32) -> MappedMutexGuard<Vec<i32>> {
MutexGuard::map(self.data.lock(), |d| d.get_mut(i).unwrap())
}
}
You can try it on the playground here.
This solution is similar to #Neikos's, but using owning_ref to do hold the MutexGuard and a reference to the Vec:
extern crate owning_ref;
use std::sync::Arc;
use std::sync::{Mutex,MutexGuard};
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::vec::Vec;
use owning_ref::MutexGuardRef;
type HM = HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>;
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HM>>,
}
impl MyStruct {
pub fn new() -> MyStruct {
let mut hm = HashMap::new();
hm.insert(3, vec![2,3,5,7]);
MyStruct{
data: Arc::new(Mutex::new(hm)),
}
}
pub fn get_data_for<'ret, 'me:'ret, 'c>(&'me self, i: &'c i32) -> MutexGuardRef<'ret, HM, Vec<i32>> {
MutexGuardRef::new(self.data.lock().unwrap())
.map(|mg| mg.get(i).unwrap())
}
}
fn main() {
let s: MyStruct = MyStruct::new();
let vref = s.get_data_for(&3);
for x in vref.iter() {
println!("{}", x);
}
}
This has the advantage that it's easy (through the map method on owning_ref) to get a similar reference to anything else reachable from the Mutex (an individual item in a Vec, etc.) without having to re-implement the returned type.
This can be made possible by using a secondary struct that implements Deref and holds the MutexGuard.
Example:
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex, MutexGuard};
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::ops::Deref;
pub struct Inner<'a>(MutexGuard<'a, HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>>, i32);
impl<'a> Deref for Inner<'a> {
type Target = Vec<i32>;
fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
self.0.get(&self.1).unwrap()
}
}
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>>>,
}
impl MyStruct {
pub fn get_data_for<'a>(&'a self, i: i32) -> Inner<'a> {
let d = self.data.lock().unwrap();
Inner(d, i)
}
}
fn main() {
let mut hm = HashMap::new();
hm.insert(1, vec![1,2,3]);
let s = MyStruct {
data: Arc::new(Mutex::new(hm))
};
{
let v = s.get_data_for(1);
println!("{:?}", *v);
let x : Vec<_> = v.iter().map(|x| x * 2).collect();
println!("{:?}", x); // Just an example to see that it works
}
}
As described in Why can't I store a value and a reference to that value in the same struct?, the Rental crate allows for self-referential structs in certain cases. Here, we bundle the Arc, the MutexGuard, and the value all into a struct that Derefs to the value:
#[macro_use]
extern crate rental;
use std::{
collections::HashMap, sync::{Arc, Mutex},
};
use owning_mutex_guard_value::OwningMutexGuardValue;
pub struct MyStruct {
data: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>>>,
}
impl MyStruct {
pub fn get_data_for(&self, i: &i32) -> OwningMutexGuardValue<HashMap<i32, Vec<i32>>, Vec<i32>> {
OwningMutexGuardValue::new(
self.data.clone(),
|d| Box::new(d.lock().unwrap()),
|g, _| g.get(i).unwrap(),
)
}
}
rental! {
mod owning_mutex_guard_value {
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex, MutexGuard};
#[rental(deref_suffix)]
pub struct OwningMutexGuardValue<T, U>
where
T: 'static,
U: 'static,
{
lock: Arc<Mutex<T>>,
guard: Box<MutexGuard<'lock, T>>,
value: &'guard U,
}
}
}
fn main() {
let mut data = HashMap::new();
data.insert(1, vec![1, 2, 3]);
let s = MyStruct {
data: Arc::new(Mutex::new(data)),
};
let locked_data = s.get_data_for(&1);
let total: i32 = locked_data.iter().map(|x| x * 2).sum();
println!("{}", total);
assert!(s.data.try_lock().is_err());
drop(locked_data);
assert!(s.data.try_lock().is_ok());
}
Here's an implementation of the closure-passing approach mentioned in the comments:
impl MyStruct {
pub fn with_data_for<T>(&self, i: &i32, f: impl FnOnce(&Vec<i32>) -> T) -> Option<T> {
let map_guard = &self.data.lock().ok()?;
let vec = &map_guard.get(i)?;
Some(f(vec))
}
}
Rust Playground
Example usage:
s.with_data_for(&1, |v| {
println!("{:?}", v);
});
let sum: i32 = s.with_data_for(&1, |v| v.iter().sum()).unwrap();
println!("{}", sum);