Can't write generic const fns

[ilyvion]

I was going to leave this as a remark on #80384, but you're apparently supposed to make separate issues instead of leaving comments on tracking issues, so here goes:

I was just playing around and couldn't even get past this simple code before getting yelled at:

const fn foo<T, const N: usize>(values: [T; N]) -> [T; N] {
    let slice = values.as_slice();
    let len = slice.len();
    
    values
}

Both as_slice() and len() are declared as const fn, so you'd think they'd be fine to use in another const fn, but no:

error[E0658]: cannot borrow here, since the borrowed element may contain interior mutability
 --> src/lib.rs:2:17
  |
2 |     let slice = values.as_slice();
  |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
  = note: see issue #80384 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80384> for more information

I don't even understand what this is trying to tell me. Issue #80384, which is the one linked, does not at all explain the source/cause of this error. I'm not working with UnsafeCell or interior mutability here. I'm attempting to make a &[T] from a [T; N].

[asquared31415]

Consider the following code:

let arr = [UnsafeCell::new(1_u32)];
foo(arr);

your code would then have T = UnsafeCell<u32>, then make a &[UnsafeCell<u32>] which is rejected because that could potentially be used as interior mutability, which is rejected in const.

[ilyvion]

If UnsafeCell can't be used in const, why are some of its methods const fns? This all seems like a rather bad series of choices.

[Cerber-Ursi]

UnsafeCell can't be used in const, but can be (indirectly, with some Sync wrapper, like Mutex) used in static:

use core::cell::UnsafeCell;

struct RacyCell<T>(UnsafeCell<T>);
unsafe impl<T> Sync for RacyCell<T> {}

static CELL: RacyCell<u8> = RacyCell(UnsafeCell::new(42));

And static initializers can't call non-const functions.

[workingjubilee]

If UnsafeCell can't be used in const, why are some of its methods const fns? This all seems like a rather bad series of choices.

We actually intend to make mutability in const fn possible, and that will probably include UnsafeCell<T> (eventually). This is (mostly) the const_mut_ref feature.

[ilyvion]

I don't suppose it'd be possible for the compiler to detect the presence of UnsafeCell in the specific monomorphization of T in const fn foo<T, const N: usize>(values: [T; N]) -> [T; N] rather than just blanket disallow usage of all generics/mutability in const?

For instance,

const fn foo<const N: usize>(values: [String; N]) -> [String; N] {
    let slice = values.as_slice();
    let len = slice.len();
    
    values
}

compiles just fine while

use std::cell::UnsafeCell;

struct Foo(UnsafeCell<()>);

const fn foo<const N: usize>(values: [Foo; N]) -> [Foo; N] {
    let slice = values.as_slice();
    let len = slice.len();
    
    values
}

does not -- clearly the compiler knows that String doesn't have interior mutability and that Foo does; couldn't this same "test" be done on a per-T basis rather than as on a blanket for-all-T basis?

[workingjubilee]

What you are describing (sometimes called a "post-monomorphization error") is both absurdly controversial (Rust allows them to happen, but it's still controversial in terms of API design), and also will become unnecessary the moment const_mut_refs stabilizes, so, uh,

Probably not?

[ilyvion]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "when feature X stabilizes" in Rust can mean "by the next version" or "in over a decade," so that doesn't mean much and could leave a huge class of useful generic const functions unwritable for a very long time for the sake of making something unnecessary later.

But if it's basically a policy (or at least the uncontroversial approach) that it's better to error out on the basis of "any given T can violate something" rather than on the basis of "a specific T can violate something," there's not much to do about it I suppose.

[workingjubilee]

Oh, I agree. I'm basically always pushing for more const stuff reaching anywhere near stable precisely because of things like this. There's... currently a lot of "huge class(es) of useful generic const functions (that are) unwritable".

I think the hardest problem here is that even if you PRed the changes necessary to the compiler to make this happen, you'd mostly be trying to convince all the people who are trying to fix the exact problems to simply make this work take a look at your code which may make their work take longer as they now have to work around it as well.

Also it would prooobably be another feature with gating, and probably work to test and stabilize it even if accepted, not just a "hey let's do this" and then in it goes into 1.75? So!