Tracking Issue for `core::pin::pin!` #93178

danielhenrymantilla · 2022-01-21T22:28:02Z

Feature gate: #![feature(pin_macro)]

This is a tracking issue for core::pin::pin!, which allows pinning values to the stack / local scope.

Public API

// core::pin

/// API: `fn pin<T>($value: T) -> Pin<&'local mut T>`
pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) {
    …
}

Steps / History

Implementation: Add a stack-pin!-ning macro to core::pin. #93176
Final comment period (FCP)
Stabilization PR: Stabilize ::{core,std}::pin::pin! #103800

(un)Resolved Questions

Should it be named pin_mut! instead, and have a pin_ref! counterpart? (cc @cramertj's Add a stack-pin!-ning macro to core::pin. #93176 (comment))

I claim this has been deemed resolved by this conclusion

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

…ro, r=m-ou-se Add a stack-`pin!`-ning macro to `core::pin`. - rust-lang#93178 `pin!` allows pinning a value to the stack. Thanks to being implemented in the stdlib, which gives access to `macro` macros, and to the private `.pointer` field of the `Pin` wrapper, [it was recently discovered](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/187312-wg-async-foundations/topic/pin!.20.E2.80.94.20the.20.22definitive.22.20edition.20.28a.20rhs-compatible.20pin-nin.2E.2E.2E/near/268731241) ([archive link](https://zulip-archive.rust-lang.org/stream/187312-wg-async-foundations/topic/A.20rhs-compatible.20pin-ning.20macro.html#268731241)), contrary to popular belief, that it is actually possible to implement and feature such a macro: ```rust let foo: Pin<&mut PhantomPinned> = pin!(PhantomPinned); stuff(foo); ``` or, directly: ```rust stuff(pin!(PhantomPinned)); ``` - For context, historically, this used to require one of the two following syntaxes: - ```rust let foo = PhantomPinned; pin!(foo); stuff(foo); ``` - ```rust pin! { let foo = PhantomPinned; } stuff(foo); ``` This macro thus allows, for instance, doing things like: ```diff fn block_on<T>(fut: impl Future<Output = T>) -> T { // Pin the future so it can be polled. - let mut fut = Box::pin(fut); + let mut fut = pin!(fut); // Create a new context to be passed to the future. let t = thread::current(); let waker = Arc::new(ThreadWaker(t)).into(); let mut cx = Context::from_waker(&waker); // Run the future to completion. loop { match fut.as_mut().poll(&mut cx) { Poll::Ready(res) => return res, Poll::Pending => thread::park(), } } } ``` - _c.f._, https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.58.1/alloc/task/trait.Wake.html And so on, and so forth. I don't think such an API can get better than that, barring full featured language support (`&pin` references or something), so I see no reason not to start experimenting with featuring this in the stdlib already 🙂 - cc `@rust-lang/wg-async-foundations` \[EDIT: this doesn't seem to have pinged anybody 😩, thanks `@yoshuawuyts` for the real ping\] r? `@joshtriplett` ___ # Docs preview https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9920355/150605731-1f45c2eb-c9b0-4ce3-b17f-2784fb75786e.mp4 ___ # Implementation The implementation ends up being dead simple (so much it's embarrassing): ```rust pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) { Pin { pointer: &mut { $value } } } ``` _and voilà_! - The key for it working lies in [the rules governing the scope of anonymous temporaries](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.58.1/reference/destructors.html#temporary-lifetime-extension). <details><summary>Comments and context</summary> This is `Pin::new_unchecked(&mut { $value })`, so, for starters, let's review such a hypothetical macro (that any user-code could define): ```rust macro_rules! pin {( $value:expr ) => ( match &mut { $value } { at_value => unsafe { // Do not wrap `$value` in an `unsafe` block. $crate::pin::Pin::<&mut _>::new_unchecked(at_value) }} )} ``` Safety: - `type P = &mut _`. There are thus no pathological `Deref{,Mut}` impls that would break `Pin`'s invariants. - `{ $value }` is braced, making it a _block expression_, thus **moving** the given `$value`, and making it _become an **anonymous** temporary_. By virtue of being anonynomous, it can no longer be accessed, thus preventing any attemps to `mem::replace` it or `mem::forget` it, _etc._ This gives us a `pin!` definition that is sound, and which works, but only in certain scenarios: - If the `pin!(value)` expression is _directly_ fed to a function call: `let poll = pin!(fut).poll(cx);` - If the `pin!(value)` expression is part of a scrutinee: ```rust match pin!(fut) { pinned_fut => { pinned_fut.as_mut().poll(...); pinned_fut.as_mut().poll(...); }} // <- `fut` is dropped here. ``` Alas, it doesn't work for the more straight-forward use-case: `let` bindings. ```rust let pinned_fut = pin!(fut); // <- temporary value is freed at the end of this statement pinned_fut.poll(...) // error[E0716]: temporary value dropped while borrowed // note: consider using a `let` binding to create a longer lived value ``` - Issues such as this one are the ones motivating rust-lang/rfcs#66 This makes such a macro incredibly unergonomic in practice, and the reason most macros out there had to take the path of being a statement/binding macro (_e.g._, `pin!(future);`) instead of featuring the more intuitive ergonomics of an expression macro. Luckily, there is a way to avoid the problem. Indeed, the problem stems from the fact that a temporary is dropped at the end of its enclosing statement when it is part of the parameters given to function call, which has precisely been the case with our `Pin::new_unchecked()`! For instance, ```rust let p = Pin::new_unchecked(&mut <temporary>); ``` becomes: ```rust let p = { let mut anon = <temporary>; &mut anon }; ``` However, when using a literal braced struct to construct the value, references to temporaries can then be taken. This makes Rust change the lifespan of such temporaries so that they are, instead, dropped _at the end of the enscoping block_. For instance, ```rust let p = Pin { pointer: &mut <temporary> }; ``` becomes: ```rust let mut anon = <temporary>; let p = Pin { pointer: &mut anon }; ``` which is *exactly* what we want. Finally, we don't hit problems _w.r.t._ the privacy of the `pointer` field, or the unqualified `Pin` name, thanks to `decl_macro`s being _fully_ hygienic (`def_site` hygiene). </details> ___ # TODO - [x] Add compile-fail tests with attempts to break the `Pin` invariants thanks to the macro (_e.g._, try to access the private `.pointer` field, or see what happens if such a pin is used outside its enscoping scope (borrow error)); - [ ] Follow-up stuff: - [ ] Try to experiment with adding `pin!` to the prelude: this may require to be handled with some extra care, as it may lead to issues reminiscent of those of `assert_matches!`: rust-lang#82913 - [x] Create the tracking issue.

Fix the generator example for `pin!()` The previous generator example is not actually self-referential, since the reference is created after the yield. CC rust-lang#93178 (tracking issue)

jsenkpiel-godaddy · 2022-10-24T22:36:49Z

I feel like this should be called pin_mut! and have a pin_ref! counterpart, because you can't feed it T but only &mut T/&T.

RalfJung · 2022-10-25T06:15:09Z

Not sure what you mean, you can give it a T just fine. You will get a Pin<&mut T>, but that can be easily converted into Pin<&T> if needed via as_ref.

danielhenrymantilla · 2022-10-29T13:51:27Z

Ok, after all this time, there have been no issues with nightly users of this feature, and the macro seems as good as it is possible to have at the moment.

The main unresolved question being about the naming of the macro: should it remain as `pin!`, or should it become `pin_mut!` to pave the way for a `pin_ref!` counterpart?

While pin_mut! would be a safe / conservative choice, I think it would be overkill here.
To illustrate why, let's start by drawing some parallels with Box or other ownership-based APIs.

This is a legitimate think to do, since pin!ning is the stack/local counterpart of Box::pinning, i.e., its key aspect is ownership-based, not borrowing-based: contrary to the usual getter design of .as_{ref,mut}, .deref{,_mut}, ptr::addr_of{_mut}!, pin! consumes ownership of its input!

And in the same fashion that we have Box::leak() consuming ownership of the input, and returning a borrow in output, a borrow which happens to be an exclusive one, pin!'s design is quite similar.

And we don't have have Box::leak_mut() + Box::leak_ref(), we just just have Box::leak(). Users wanting a shared reference after leaking just have to &* (the idea being that such function returns &mut because it's maximally capable, a shared reference being a strictly less powerful API):

let p: &mut _ = Box::leak(thing); // `thing` **moved out**
let r: &_ = &*p;

let p: Pin<&mut _> = pin!(thing); // `thing` **moved out**
let r: Pin<&_> = p.as_ref();

(there is one difference, though: pin! uses subtle lifetime extension¹, which doesn't allow for methods to be directly called on the pin!ned thing as it is being assigned to a local. This makes the two lines in the example be required for proper usage, which isn't the case for Box).

On the contrary, if we went with pin_mut!, we'd then have a symmetric pin_ref! / pin_mut! situation, which I actually find not that useful:

As this comment from @Darksonn —the maintainer of a very popular future-based ecosystem— says, the need for Pin<&_>s doesn't really occur in practice. While some very specific APIs could end up relying on it, the truth is that it will at most result in an undermining minority, compared to the usage of Pin<&mut>.

As an illustrating example, the very pervasive #[pin_project] macro (of the eponymous crate) imbues the annotated type with a .project() method, which is &mut-based.
- There is no _mut suffix;
- there is, however, a project_ref() counterpart.
On grep.app, .project() yields 1539 occurrences², whereas .project_ref() yields 15 (with around 5 for pin_project's "let's keep it general" API itself).
That's a difference of two orders of magnitude.

That is, there is little motivation in having a symmetric convenience API for a situation which is hugely asymmetric.

Worse, keeping the symmetry will actually end up being confusing, much like having Box::leak_mut() vs. Box::leak_ref() could have been: since the ref variant could be implemented in terms of the mut one, users could legitimately wonder if there was some other difference they might have missed: it would be a case of accidental complexity, as I view it.

That is: having both pin_mut! and pin_ref! could be confusing for Alan, should they decide to try to write block_on, select!, or something like that without resorting to Box::pin.

Conclusion

pin_mut! does not seem to pull its weight compared to pin!; we should go with the latter, and ensure a "pit of success" for people such as Alan to use the right tool from the start 🙂, and avoid some bits of accidental complexity.

(In the future, should pin_ref! really be deemed useful, we could always imitate the .project() / .project_ref() design of #[pin_project]: pin! and pin_ref!. This would offer the tiny extra flexibility of not requiring two statements for the Pin<&_> case, while still heavily favoring the &mut case, as it should be).

[EDIT] as @tmandry points out, this doesn't even have to remain being an issue in the long term, as finding a way to solve RFC 66 (Better temporary lifetimes (tracking issue for RFC 66) #15023) could help fix this 🤞 ↩
Granted, .project() is a potentially more frequent name for other APIs, but from randomly skimming the grep.app page results, I was seeing elements indicative of work on Futures or Pinning. ↩

danielhenrymantilla · 2022-10-29T13:54:39Z

That's why I'd vote for:

sticking to pin! (no pin_mut!), and should people agree with this, it means it's time for:
starting an FCP for its stabilization (should I make a tentative stabilization PR to trigger it, or should I wait for the FCP before making the PR?)

tmandry · 2022-10-29T17:29:39Z

This all sounds good to me. I'm excited to see this move forward, thank you for pushing on it!

should I make a tentative stabilization PR to trigger it, or should I wait for the FCP to before make the PR?

Either way is fine but personally I'd make a PR, less chance of getting lost :)

tmandry · 2022-10-29T18:09:43Z

(there is one difference, though: pin! uses subtle lifetime extension, which doesn't allow for methods to be directly called on the pin!ned thing as it is being assigned to a local. This makes the two lines in the example be required for proper usage, which isn't the case for Box).

It's worth stating that this is a deficiency of Rust's lifetime extension rules (a deficiency that the definition of pin! itself works around by being in std), and would be fixed when RFC 66 is implemented (#15023).

…macro, r=dtolnay Stabilize `::{core,std}::pin::pin!` As discussed [over here](rust-lang#93178 (comment)), it looks like a decent time to stabilize the `pin!` macro. ### Public API ```rust // in module `core::pin` /// API: `fn pin<T>($value: T) -> Pin<&'local mut T>` pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) { … } ``` - Tracking issue: rust-lang#93178 (now all this needs is an FCP by the proper team?)

…dtolnay Stabilize `::{core,std}::pin::pin!` As discussed [over here](rust-lang/rust#93178 (comment)), it looks like a decent time to stabilize the `pin!` macro. ### Public API ```rust // in module `core::pin` /// API: `fn pin<T>($value: T) -> Pin<&'local mut T>` pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) { … } ``` - Tracking issue: #93178 (now all this needs is an FCP by the proper team?)

jkarneges · 2023-01-17T22:36:57Z

For anyone wanting to start using this style of pinning without having to bump their MSRV, below is a workaround. The extra Option, Deref, and Future impls helped make it work as a drop-in substitution in our application (no need for extra .as_mut() calls). Feedback welcome.

use std::future::Future;
use std::ops::Deref;
use std::pin::Pin;
use std::task::{Context, Poll};

pub struct Pinner<'a, T> {
    pub unsafe_pointer: &'a mut T,
}

impl<'a, T> Pinner<'a, T> {
    pub fn as_mut(&mut self) -> Pin<&mut T> {
        // SAFETY: as long as Pinner is only ever constructed via the pin!()
        // macro and the unsafe_pointer field is never directly accessed,
        // then the value is safe to pin here. this is because the macro
        // ensures the input is turned into a borrowed anonymous temporary,
        // preventing any further access to the original value after Pinner
        // is constructed, and Pinner has no methods that enable moving out
        // of the reference. the word "unsafe" is used in the field name to
        // discourage direct access. this is the best we can do, since the
        // field must be public for the macro to work.
        unsafe { Pin::new_unchecked(self.unsafe_pointer) }
    }

    pub fn set(&mut self, value: T) {
        self.as_mut().set(value)
    }
}

impl<'a, T> Pinner<'a, Option<T>> {
    pub fn as_pin_mut(&mut self) -> Option<Pin<&mut T>> {
        self.as_mut().as_pin_mut()
    }
}

impl<'a, T> Deref for Pinner<'a, T> {
    type Target = T;

    fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
        self.unsafe_pointer
    }
}

impl<'a, T> Future for Pinner<'a, T>
where
    T: Future,
{
    type Output = T::Output;

    fn poll(self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Self::Output> {
        T::poll(Pin::into_inner(self).as_mut(), cx)
    }
}

#[macro_export]
macro_rules! pin {
    ($x:expr) => {
        crate::Pinner {
            unsafe_pointer: &mut { $x },
        }
    };
}

ojeda · 2023-04-01T09:24:33Z

Should this one be closed?

…dtolnay Stabilize `::{core,std}::pin::pin!` As discussed [over here](rust-lang/rust#93178 (comment)), it looks like a decent time to stabilize the `pin!` macro. ### Public API ```rust // in module `core::pin` /// API: `fn pin<T>($value: T) -> Pin<&'local mut T>` pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) { … } ``` - Tracking issue: #93178 (now all this needs is an FCP by the proper team?)

carrycooldude · 2023-09-10T13:18:54Z

Error is coming on this one please check:

error[E0658]: use of unstable library feature 'pin_macro'
--> /home/kartikey/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/wiremock-0.5.19/src/mock_server/bare_server.rs:247:32
|
247 | let mut notification = pin!(notify.notified());
| ^^^
|
= note: see issue #93178 #93178 for more information

Checking fake v2.8.0

error[E0658]: use of unstable library feature 'pin_macro'
--> /home/kartikey/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/wiremock-0.5.19/src/mock_server/bare_server.rs:6:5
|
6 | use std::pin::pin;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue #93178 #93178 for more information

danielhenrymantilla · 2023-09-10T16:08:32Z

@carrycooldude this means the version of rust (toolchain) you are using is too old for that wiremock (transitive?) dependency you have. Please use ≥1.68.0

danielhenrymantilla added C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 21, 2022

danielhenrymantilla mentioned this issue Jan 21, 2022

Add a stack-pin!-ning macro to core::pin. #93176

Merged

4 tasks

danielhenrymantilla changed the title ~~Tracking Issue for the core::pin::pin!~~ Tracking Issue for core::pin::pin! Jan 21, 2022

yoshuawuyts mentioned this issue Mar 17, 2022

Bring pin facilities from the ecosystem into the stdlib/language nrc/portable-interoperable#8

Open

2 tasks

mbartlett21 mentioned this issue May 4, 2022

Fix the generator example for pin!() #96719

Merged

AldaronLau mentioned this issue Jun 11, 2022

Rust Language Features That Could Improve Pasts ardaku/pasts#17

Open

1 task

danielhenrymantilla mentioned this issue Oct 31, 2022

Stabilize ::{core,std}::pin::pin! #103800

Merged

vzvezda mentioned this issue Nov 11, 2022

Remove impl of std features once these are releases vzvezda/aiur#35

Open

ojeda mentioned this issue Apr 1, 2023

Rust unstable features needed for the kernel Rust-for-Linux/linux#2

Open

83 tasks

danielhenrymantilla closed this as completed Apr 1, 2023

carrycooldude mentioned this issue Sep 10, 2023

error: could not compile wiremock wiremock/wiremock#2369

Closed

carrycooldude mentioned this issue Sep 11, 2023

error: could not compile wiremock LukeMathWalker/wiremock-rs#126

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Tracking Issue for `core::pin::pin!` #93178

Tracking Issue for `core::pin::pin!` #93178

danielhenrymantilla commented Jan 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jsenkpiel-godaddy commented Oct 24, 2022

RalfJung commented Oct 25, 2022

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tmandry commented Oct 29, 2022

tmandry commented Oct 29, 2022

jkarneges commented Jan 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ojeda commented Apr 1, 2023

carrycooldude commented Sep 10, 2023

danielhenrymantilla commented Sep 10, 2023

Tracking Issue for core::pin::pin! #93178

Tracking Issue for core::pin::pin! #93178

Comments

danielhenrymantilla commented Jan 21, 2022 • edited Loading

Public API

Steps / History

(un)Resolved Questions

jsenkpiel-godaddy commented Oct 24, 2022

RalfJung commented Oct 25, 2022

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 • edited Loading

The main unresolved question being about the naming of the macro: should it remain as pin!, or should it become pin_mut! to pave the way for a pin_ref! counterpart?

Conclusion

Footnotes

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 • edited Loading

tmandry commented Oct 29, 2022

tmandry commented Oct 29, 2022

jkarneges commented Jan 17, 2023 • edited Loading

ojeda commented Apr 1, 2023

carrycooldude commented Sep 10, 2023

danielhenrymantilla commented Sep 10, 2023

Tracking Issue for `core::pin::pin!` #93178

Tracking Issue for `core::pin::pin!` #93178

danielhenrymantilla commented Jan 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

The main unresolved question being about the naming of the macro: should it remain as `pin!`, or should it become `pin_mut!` to pave the way for a `pin_ref!` counterpart?

danielhenrymantilla commented Oct 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jkarneges commented Jan 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading