*const T has quite a few methods that seem like they don't need to require T: Sized

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Not sure which exactly, but we should evaluate and relax bounds where possible.

See also #24794, #36952.

[smmalis37]

Adding to this, std::ptr::null & std::ptr::null_mut. Technically not methods on *const T but has these bounds too.

[ExpHP]

All inherent methods and trait impls for *const T and *mut T now have a T: ?Sized bound thanks to #44932 and #46094.

Following the paper trail, it appears that there may be good reason that std::ptr::{null,null_mut} do not support T: ?Sized.

[shepmaster]

Should I open a new issue to argue about std::ptr::null / std::ptr::null_mut? Seems wrong when used with extern types:

extern {
    type foo_t;
}

fn fake_foo_new() -> *const foo_t {
    std::ptr::null()
}

error[E0277]: the trait bound `foo_t: std::marker::Sized` is not satisfied
  --> src/main.rs:15:5
   |
15 |     std::ptr::null()
   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `foo_t` does not have a constant size known at compile-time
   |
   = help: the trait `std::marker::Sized` is not implemented for `foo_t`
   = note: required by `std::ptr::null`

[ExpHP]

Do mind that the conclusion drawn in the last thread I linked seemed to be that null vtable pointers (even on raw pointers) are currently considered to be UB in rust.

(I'm not saying that you necessarily shouldn't; just pointing out. Maybe new facts and use cases may bring a new perspective)

Edit: wow, it just occurred to me what you're showing in that example. I never realized that rust had any unsized types that use thin pointers!

[shepmaster]

I'll be that person and ping in @dtolnay, @eddyb, and @mikeyhew for some more discussion around my last comment

[kennytm]

Unless there's a trait to distinguish between thin+unsized and fat+unsized pointers, we cannot relax the Sized bounds. In particular, trait object pointers *const dyn Trait must not have a null vtable (unless we have impl Trait for ! for all traits), and thus null() should not be defined for trait objects.

When the custom DST traits are included we could define

fn null<T: ?Sized>() -> *const T
where
    T::Meta: Default,
{
    /* assemble a custom DST from { ptr = 0, meta = T::Meta::default() } */
}

[shepmaster]

I can certainly see that a null vtable would be a bad thing, but I also feel that the complete inability to create a NULL or uninitialized extern type is going to be a real blocker to a lot of usage of extern types:

#![feature(extern_types)]

extern {
    type foo_t;
    
    fn foo_init(f: *mut foo_t);
}

fn main() {
    let mut a = std::mem::uninitialized();
    unsafe { foo_init(&mut a) };
}

error[E0277]: the trait bound `foo_t: std::marker::Sized` is not satisfied
  --> src/main.rs:10:9
   |
10 |     let mut a = std::mem::uninitialized();
   |         ^^^^^ `foo_t` does not have a constant size known at compile-time
   |
   = help: the trait `std::marker::Sized` is not implemented for `foo_t`
   = note: all local variables must have a statically known size

Edit — that was a dumb example because of course a can't be on the stack, it's unsized. The real example of that would work:

#![feature(extern_types)]

extern "C" {
    type foo_t;

    fn foo_init(f: *mut *mut foo_t);
}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let mut a = std::mem::uninitialized();
        foo_init(&mut a);
    }
}

The corresponding equivalent with null still doesn't:

#![feature(extern_types)]

extern "C" {
    type foo_t;

    fn foo_init(f: *mut *mut foo_t);
}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let mut a = std::ptr::null_mut();
        foo_init(&mut a);
    }
}

error[E0277]: the trait bound `foo_t: std::marker::Sized` is not satisfied
  --> src/main.rs:11:21
   |
11 |         let mut a = std::ptr::null_mut();
   |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `foo_t` does not have a constant size known at compile-time
   |
   = help: the trait `std::marker::Sized` is not implemented for `foo_t`
   = note: required by `std::ptr::null_mut`

[dtolnay]

As a workaround for now you can get a null pointer to extern type through as:

#![feature(extern_types)]

extern "C" {
    type foo_t;

    fn foo_take_null(f: *mut foo_t);
}

fn main() {
    let a = 0 as *mut foo_t;
    unsafe {
        foo_take_null(a);
    }
}

[eddyb]

We should add a private/unstable marker trait and use it to add a bound that's weaker than Sized.

It should be directly equivalent to T::Meta == (). The implementation can use unions and an assert that the size of the pointer matches that of a regular pointer (which it always would for this trait).

cc @retep998

[SimonSapin]

Is null and null_mut for extern types the only remaining thing tracked in this issue?

---

RFC 2580 (implementation PR: #81172) add public APIs for pointer metadata and a pub trait Thin = Pointee<Metadata = ()>;.

Building on top of that, I hoped that fixing this issue would be as simple as

-pub const fn null<T>() -> *const T {
+pub const fn null<T: ?Sized + Thin>() -> *const T {

-pub const fn null_mut<T>() -> *mut T {
+pub const fn null_mut<T: ?Sized + Thin>() -> *mut T {

However this gives two kinds of errors when compiling libcore:

• error[E0606]: casting `usize` as `*const T` is invalid
     --> library/core/src/ptr/mod.rs:210:5
      |
  210 |     0 as *const T
      |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
  error[E0606]: casting `usize` as `*mut T` is invalid
     --> library/core/src/ptr/mod.rs:228:5
      |
  228 |     0 as *mut T
      |     ^^^^^^^^^^^

  Possible fix: in compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/cast.rs, in FnCtxt::pointer_kind, in the ty::Param case: if a Pointee<Metadata = ()> bound is in scope for that parameter return Ok(Some(PointerKind::Thin)). This might be similar to type_is_known_to_be_sized_modulo_regions which for type parameters presumably checks if a (possibly implicity) Sized bound is in scope.

• error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<T as Pointee>::Metadata == ()`
     --> library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs:171:24
      |
  171 |         AtomicPtr::new(crate::ptr::null_mut())
      |                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `()`, found associated type
      |
     ::: library/core/src/ptr/mod.rs:227:35
      |
  227 | pub const fn null_mut<T: ?Sized + Thin>() -> *mut T {
      |                                   ---- required by this bound in `ptr::null_mut`
      |
      = note:    expected unit type `()`
              found associated type `<T as Pointee>::Metadata`
      = help: consider constraining the associated type `<T as Pointee>::Metadata` to `()`
      = note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-advanced>

  Possible fix? “Somehow” teach the trait resolver that T: Sized implies T: Pointee<Metadata = ()>. Maybe in the compiler itself, as changing the library definition to trait Sized: Thin {} causes many instances of error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<Something as Pointee>::Metadata == ()` .

[Ericson2314]

I hope we can do trait Sized: Thin {} in the library in addition to whatever compiler tricks are needed, as the supertrait is "morally correct" and good for documentation.

[madsmtm]

AtomicPtr specifically should probably have the same T: ?Sized + Thin bound, so the issue would go away there - but I agree with making trait Sized: Thin {}