alt Hacker NewsThe heart of the matter:
struct Q<T: 'static>(Option<T>);
impl<T: 'static> Drop for Q<T> {
fn drop(&mut self) {
// Code in here has access to a non-'static &String
// but assumes that it's a &'static String
}
}
fn main() {
let l = String::new();
let mut q = Q(None);
q.0 = Some(&l);
}
Replies
1718627440 • today at 12:13 PM
Can someone ELI5 for people who don't know Rust (but e.g. C)?
➕ show 2 replies
afdbcreid • today at 11:38 AM
> I wonder if the certified compiler for safety critical uses has the same issue.
It uses the same code, so yes.
(Although I don't know what are their guidelines, it might be that they require avoiding code relying on implied bounds, for example).
wg0 • today at 11:22 AM
DeepSeek v4.1 Flash thinks it should NOT compile. Whereas in reality it DOES compile which is why it is filed as a bug.
➕ show 1 reply
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/164250#issuecomment... seems to imply it's broader, something along the lines of "type parameter lifetimes are not checked".
I doubt my read is fully accurate, there's probably a relatively small niche where it occurs. But it does seem to be a rather glaring gap, for how long it has existed.
(All languages have this, this is not a rust bashing. Rust seems to do quite well for how complex it is)