--- /dev/null
+% Static and Dynamic Dispatch
+
+When code involves polymorphism, there needs to be a mechanism to determine
+which specific version is actually run. This is called 'dispatch.' There are
+two major forms of dispatch: static dispatch and dynamic dispatch. While Rust
+favors static dispatch, it also supports dynamic dispatch through a mechanism
+called 'trait objects.'
+
+## Background
+
+For the rest of this chapter, we'll need a trait and some implementations.
+Let's make a simple one, `Foo`. It has one method that is expected to return a
+`String`.
+
+```rust
+trait Foo {
+ fn method(&self) -> String;
+}
+```
+
+We'll also implement this trait for `u8` and `String`:
+
+```rust
+# trait Foo { fn method(&self) -> String; }
+impl Foo for u8 {
+ fn method(&self) -> String { format!("u8: {}", *self) }
+}
+
+impl Foo for String {
+ fn method(&self) -> String { format!("string: {}", *self) }
+}
+```
+
+
+## Static dispatch
+
+We can use this trait to perform static dispatch with trait bounds:
+
+```rust
+# trait Foo { fn method(&self) -> String; }
+# impl Foo for u8 { fn method(&self) -> String { format!("u8: {}", *self) } }
+# impl Foo for String { fn method(&self) -> String { format!("string: {}", *self) } }
+fn do_something<T: Foo>(x: T) {
+ x.method();
+}
+
+fn main() {
+ let x = 5u8;
+ let y = "Hello".to_string();
+
+ do_something(x);
+ do_something(y);
+}
+```
+
+Rust uses 'monomorphization' to perform static dispatch here. This means that
+Rust will create a special version of `do_something()` for both `u8` and
+`String`, and then replace the call sites with calls to these specialized
+functions. In other words, Rust generates something like this:
+
+```rust
+# trait Foo { fn method(&self) -> String; }
+# impl Foo for u8 { fn method(&self) -> String { format!("u8: {}", *self) } }
+# impl Foo for String { fn method(&self) -> String { format!("string: {}", *self) } }
+fn do_something_u8(x: u8) {
+ x.method();
+}
+
+fn do_something_string(x: String) {
+ x.method();
+}
+
+fn main() {
+ let x = 5u8;
+ let y = "Hello".to_string();
+
+ do_something_u8(x);
+ do_something_string(y);
+}
+```
+
+This has some upsides: static dispatching of any method calls, allowing for
+inlining and hence usually higher performance. It also has some downsides:
+causing code bloat due to many copies of the same function existing in the
+binary, one for each type.
+
+Furthermore, compilers aren’t perfect and may “optimise” code to become slower.
+For example, functions inlined too eagerly will bloat the instruction cache
+(cache rules everything around us). This is part of the reason that `#[inline]`
+and `#[inline(always)]` should be used carefully, and one reason why using a
+dynamic dispatch is sometimes more efficient.
+
+However, the common case is that it is more efficient to use static dispatch,
+and one can always have a thin statically-dispatched wrapper function that does
+a dynamic, but not vice versa, meaning static calls are more flexible. The
+standard library tries to be statically dispatched where possible for this
+reason.
+
+## Dynamic dispatch
+
+Rust provides dynamic dispatch through a feature called 'trait objects.' Trait
+objects, like `&Foo` or `Box<Foo>`, are normal values that store a value of
+*any* type that implements the given trait, where the precise type can only be
+known at runtime. The methods of the trait can be called on a trait object via
+a special record of function pointers (created and managed by the compiler).
+
+A function that takes a trait object is not specialised to each of the types
+that implements `Foo`: only one copy is generated, often (but not always)
+resulting in less code bloat. However, this comes at the cost of requiring
+slower virtual function calls, and effectively inhibiting any chance of
+inlining and related optimisations from occurring.
+
+Trait objects are both simple and complicated: their core representation and
+layout is quite straight-forward, but there are some curly error messages and
+surprising behaviours to discover.
+
+### Obtaining a trait object
+
+There's two similar ways to get a trait object value: casts and coercions. If
+`T` is a type that implements a trait `Foo` (e.g. `u8` for the `Foo` above),
+then the two ways to get a `Foo` trait object out of a pointer to `T` look
+like:
+
+```{rust,ignore}
+let ref_to_t: &T = ...;
+
+// `as` keyword for casting
+let cast = ref_to_t as &Foo;
+
+// using a `&T` in a place that has a known type of `&Foo` will implicitly coerce:
+let coerce: &Foo = ref_to_t;
+
+fn also_coerce(_unused: &Foo) {}
+also_coerce(ref_to_t);
+```
+
+These trait object coercions and casts also work for pointers like `&mut T` to
+`&mut Foo` and `Box<T>` to `Box<Foo>`, but that's all at the moment. Coercions
+and casts are identical.
+
+This operation can be seen as "erasing" the compiler's knowledge about the
+specific type of the pointer, and hence trait objects are sometimes referred to
+"type erasure".
+
+### Representation
+
+Let's start simple, with the runtime representation of a trait object. The
+`std::raw` module contains structs with layouts that are the same as the
+complicated build-in types, [including trait objects][stdraw]:
+
+```rust
+# mod foo {
+pub struct TraitObject {
+ pub data: *mut (),
+ pub vtable: *mut (),
+}
+# }
+```
+
+[stdraw]: ../std/raw/struct.TraitObject.html
+
+That is, a trait object like `&Foo` consists of a "data" pointer and a "vtable"
+pointer.
+
+The data pointer addresses the data (of some unknown type `T`) that the trait
+object is storing, and the vtable pointer points to the vtable ("virtual method
+table") corresponding to the implementation of `Foo` for `T`.
+
+
+A vtable is essentially a struct of function pointers, pointing to the concrete
+piece of machine code for each method in the implementation. A method call like
+`trait_object.method()` will retrieve the correct pointer out of the vtable and
+then do a dynamic call of it. For example:
+
+```{rust,ignore}
+struct FooVtable {
+ destructor: fn(*mut ()),
+ size: usize,
+ align: usize,
+ method: fn(*const ()) -> String,
+}
+
+// u8:
+
+fn call_method_on_u8(x: *const ()) -> String {
+ // the compiler guarantees that this function is only called
+ // with `x` pointing to a u8
+ let byte: &u8 = unsafe { &*(x as *const u8) };
+
+ byte.method()
+}
+
+static Foo_for_u8_vtable: FooVtable = FooVtable {
+ destructor: /* compiler magic */,
+ size: 1,
+ align: 1,
+
+ // cast to a function pointer
+ method: call_method_on_u8 as fn(*const ()) -> String,
+};
+
+
+// String:
+
+fn call_method_on_String(x: *const ()) -> String {
+ // the compiler guarantees that this function is only called
+ // with `x` pointing to a String
+ let string: &String = unsafe { &*(x as *const String) };
+
+ string.method()
+}
+
+static Foo_for_String_vtable: FooVtable = FooVtable {
+ destructor: /* compiler magic */,
+ // values for a 64-bit computer, halve them for 32-bit ones
+ size: 24,
+ align: 8,
+
+ method: call_method_on_String as fn(*const ()) -> String,
+};
+```
+
+The `destructor` field in each vtable points to a function that will clean up
+any resources of the vtable's type, for `u8` it is trivial, but for `String` it
+will free the memory. This is necessary for owning trait objects like
+`Box<Foo>`, which need to clean-up both the `Box` allocation and as well as the
+internal type when they go out of scope. The `size` and `align` fields store
+the size of the erased type, and its alignment requirements; these are
+essentially unused at the moment since the information is embedded in the
+destructor, but will be used in future, as trait objects are progressively made
+more flexible.
+
+Suppose we've got some values that implement `Foo`, the explicit form of
+construction and use of `Foo` trait objects might look a bit like (ignoring the
+type mismatches: they're all just pointers anyway):
+
+```{rust,ignore}
+let a: String = "foo".to_string();
+let x: u8 = 1;
+
+// let b: &Foo = &a;
+let b = TraitObject {
+ // store the data
+ data: &a,
+ // store the methods
+ vtable: &Foo_for_String_vtable
+};
+
+// let y: &Foo = x;
+let y = TraitObject {
+ // store the data
+ data: &x,
+ // store the methods
+ vtable: &Foo_for_u8_vtable
+};
+
+// b.method();
+(b.vtable.method)(b.data);
+
+// y.method();
+(y.vtable.method)(y.data);
+```
+
+If `b` or `y` were owning trait objects (`Box<Foo>`), there would be a
+`(b.vtable.destructor)(b.data)` (respectively `y`) call when they went out of
+scope.
+
+### Why pointers?
+
+The use of language like "fat pointer" implies that a trait object is
+always a pointer of some form, but why?
+
+Rust does not put things behind a pointer by default, unlike many managed
+languages, so types can have different sizes. Knowing the size of the value at
+compile time is important for things like passing it as an argument to a
+function, moving it about on the stack and allocating (and deallocating) space
+on the heap to store it.
+
+For `Foo`, we would need to have a value that could be at least either a
+`String` (24 bytes) or a `u8` (1 byte), as well as any other type for which
+dependent crates may implement `Foo` (any number of bytes at all). There's no
+way to guarantee that this last point can work if the values are stored without
+a pointer, because those other types can be arbitrarily large.
+
+Putting the value behind a pointer means the size of the value is not relevant
+when we are tossing a trait object around, only the size of the pointer itself.
projects / rust.git / commitdiff