cc rust-lang/reference#1665
For most patterns and in safe code, "evaluation"(/matching?) order of subpatterns does not matter, but there is (that I can think of) one instance on stable where pattern evaluation order matters: matching on a struct with a tag and a union field (and similar situations).
The Reference section on unions does mention pattern matching, but does not say anything about pattern evaluation order. It gives an example of pattern-matching on a manual tagged union, though pattern evaluation order does not matter for the example given1. In a slightly different example, however, the field order does matter:
my original example
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
enum Tag { A, B, }
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
#[repr(C)]
union Value {
a: u32,
b: u8, // note that b is smaller than a
}
/// Assume that if tag == Tag::A, then val.a is valid, and if tag == Tag::B, then tag.b is valid.
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
struct Tagged {
tag: Tag,
val: Value,
}
unsafe fn tag_first(v: Tagged) -> bool {
match v {
// fine under miri with tag == B, sees that `tag != A` and skips the arm
Tagged { tag: Tag::A, val: Value { a: 0 } } => true,
_ => false,
}
}
unsafe fn val_first(v: Tagged) -> bool {
match v {
// error under miri with tag == B, since it reads the padding bytes after `Value::b`
Tagged { val: Value { a: 0 }, tag: Tag::A } => true,
_ => false,
}
}
fn main() {
let v = Tagged {
tag: Tag::B,
val: Value { b: 0 },
};
unsafe {
tag_first(v);
val_first(v);
}
}
a simpler but basically the same example
fn main() {
union Union { value: u8, _empty: () }
struct MyOption { tag: u8, value: Union } // assume tag == 1 means value.value is valid
let foo = MyOption { tag: 0, value: Union { _empty: () } };
unsafe {
match foo {
// currently fine under Miri, since `tag` is mentioned first
MyOption { tag: 1, value: Union { value: 0 } } => true,
_ => false,
};
match foo {
// currently this is UB under Miri if value is `_empty`/uninit, regardless of the tag field
MyOption { value: Union { value: 0 }, tag: 1 } => true,
_ => false,
};
}
}
For unstable code, I suppose deref_patterns might also make it important to document pattern evaluation order, or maybe that feature is/will be restricted enough for it not to matter. Depending on the resolution of #412 pattern evaluation order might be important if matching on references-to-references-to-invalid-data (miri example)?
I'm not sure if this is fully the intended behavior2, or if it is intended, how best to document it.
cc rust-lang/reference#1665
For most patterns and in safe code, "evaluation"(/matching?) order of subpatterns does not matter, but there is (that I can think of) one instance on stable where pattern evaluation order matters: matching on a struct with a tag and a
unionfield (and similar situations).The Reference section on
unions does mention pattern matching, but does not say anything about pattern evaluation order. It gives an example of pattern-matching on a manual tagged union, though pattern evaluation order does not matter for the example given1. In a slightly different example, however, the field order does matter:my original example
a simpler but basically the same example
For unstable code, I suppose
deref_patternsmight also make it important to document pattern evaluation order, or maybe that feature is/will be restricted enough for it not to matter. Depending on the resolution of #412 pattern evaluation order might be important if matching on references-to-references-to-invalid-data (miri example)?I'm not sure if this is fully the intended behavior2, or if it is intended, how best to document it.
Footnotes
in that example, the union field is fully-initailized either way, or UB happens regardless of pattern evaluation order ↩
Alternately, instead of documenting pattern evaluation order, it could be specified that if any (union) field used in a pattern match is invalid/uninitialized, then the whole arm is UB, regardless of the order the fields were written in the pattern. ↩