2 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jack Wrenn	91034adf30	Do not require that unsafe fields lack drop glue ... Instead, we adopt the position that introducing an `unsafe` field itself carries a safety invariant: that if you assign an invariant to that field weaker than what the field's destructor requires, you must ensure that field is in a droppable state in your destructor. See: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3458#discussion_r1971676100 - https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/unsafe.20fields.20RFC/near/502113897	2025-02-28 16:32:06 +00:00
Jack Wrenn	a122dde217	do not implement unsafe auto traits for types with unsafe fields ... If a type has unsafe fields, its safety invariants are not simply the conjunction of its field types' safety invariants. Consequently, it's invalid to reason about the safety properties of these types in a purely structural manner — i.e., the manner in which `auto` traits are implemented. Makes progress towards #132922.	2024-12-05 23:52:21 +00:00