dyn*: can we make dyn sized?

29 March 2022

Last Friday, tmandry, cramertj, and I had an exciting conversation. We were talking about the design for combining async functions in traits with dyn Trait that tmandry and I had presented to the lang team on Friday. cramertj had an insightful twist to offer on that design, and I want to talk about it here. Keep in mind that this is a piece of “hot off the presses”, in-progress design and hence may easily go nowhere – but at the same time, I’m pretty excited about it. If it works out, it could go a long way towards making dyn Trait user-friendly and accessible in Rust, which I think would be a big deal.

Background: The core problem with dyn

dyn Trait is one of Rust’s most frustrating features. On the one hand, dyn Trait values are absolutely necessary. You need to be able to build up collections of heterogeneous types that all implement some common interface in order to implement core parts of the system. But working with heterogeneous types is just fundamentally hard because you don’t know how big they are. This implies that you have to manipulate them by pointer, and that brings up questions of how to manage the memory that these pointers point at. This is where the problems begin.

Problem: no memory allocator in core

One challenge has to do with how we factor our allocation. The core crate that is required for all Rust programs, libcore, doesn’t have a concept of a memory allocator. It relies purely on stack allocation. For the most part, this works fine: you can pass ownership of objects around by copying them from one stack frame to another. But it doesn’t work if you don’t know how much stack space they occupy!1

Problem: Dyn traits can’t really be substituted for impl Trait

In Rust today, the type dyn Trait is guaranteed to implement the trait Trait, so long as Trait is dyn safe. That seems pretty cool, but in practice it’s not all that useful. Consider a simple function that operates on any kind of Debug type:

fn print_me(x: impl Debug) {

Even though the Debug trait is dyn-safe, you can’t just change the impl above into a dyn:

fn print_me(x: dyn Debug) { .. }

The problem here is that stack-allocated parameters need to have a known size, and we don’t know how big dyn is. The common solution is to introduce some kind of pointer, e.g. a reference:

fn print_me(x: &dyn Debug) {  }

That works ok for this function, but it has a few downsides. First, we have to change existing callers of print_me — maybe we had print_me(22) before, but now they have to write print_me(&22). That’s an ergonomic hit. Second, we’ve now hardcoded that we are borrowing the dyn Debug. There are other functions where this isn’t necessarily what we wanted to do. Maybe we wanted to store that dyn Debug into a datastructure and return it — for example, this function print_me_later returns a closure that will print x when called:

fn print_me_later(x: &dyn Debug) -> impl FnOnce() + _ {
    move || println!({x:?})

Imagine that we wanted to spawn a thread that will invoke print_me_later:

fn spawn_thread(value: usize) {
   let closure = print_me_later(&value);
   std:🧵:spawn(move || closure()); // <— Error, ‘static bound not satisfied

This code will not compile because closure references value on the stack. But if we had written print_me_later with an impl Debug parameter, it could take ownership of its argument and everything would work fine.

Of course, we could solve this by writing print_me_later to use Box but that’s hardcoding memory allocation. This is problematic if we want print_me_later to appear in a context, like libcore, that might not even have access to a memory allocator.

fn print_me_later(x: Box<dyn Debug>) -> impl FnOnce() + _ {
    move || println!({x:?})

In this specific example, the Box is also kind of inefficient. After all, the value x is just a usize, and a Box is also a usize, so in theory we could just copy the integer around (the usize methods expect an &usize, after all). This is sort of a special case, but it does come up more than you would think at the lower levels of the system, where it may be worth the trouble to try and pack things into a usize — there are a number of futures, for example, that don’t really require much state.

The idea: What if the dyn were the pointer?

In the proposal for “async fns in traits” that tmandry and I put forward, we had introduced the idea of dynx Trait types. dynx Trait types were not an actual syntax that users would ever type; rather, they were an implementation detail. Effectively a dynx Future refers to a pointer to a type that implements Future. They don’t hardcode that this pointer is a Box; instead, the vtable includes a “drop” function that knows how to release the pointer’s referent (for a Box, that would free the memory).

Better idea: What if the dyn were “something of known size”?

After the lang team meeting, tmandry and I met with cramertj, who proceeded to point out to us something very insightful.2 The truth is that dynx Trait values don’t have to be a pointer to something that implemented Trait — they just have to be something pointer-sized. tmandry and I actually knew that, but what we didn’t see was how critically important this was:

  • First, a number of futures, in practice, consist of very little state and can be pointer-sized. For example, reading from a file descriptor only needs to store the file descriptor, which is a 32-bit integer, since the kernel stores the other state. Similarly the future for a timer or other builtin runtime primitive often just needs to store an index.
  • Second, a dynx Trait lets you write code that manipulates values which may be boxed without directly talking about the box. This is critical for code that wants to appear in libcore or be reusable across any possible context.
    • As an example of something that would be much easier this way, the Waker struct, which lives in libcore, is effectively a hand-written dynx Waker struct.
  • Finally, and we’ll get to this in a bit, a lot of low-level systems code employs clever tricks where they know something about the layout of a value. For example, you might have a vector that contains values of various types, but (a) all those types have the same size and (b) they all share a common prefix. In that case, you can manipulate fields in that prefix without knowing what kind of data is contained with, and use a vtable or discriminatory to do the rest.
    • In Rust, this pattern is painful to encode, though you can sometimes do it with a Vec<S> where S is some struct that contains the prefix fields and an enum. Enums work ok but if you have a more open-ended set of types, you might prefer to have trait objects.

A sketch: The dyn-star type

To give you a sense for how cool “fixed-size dyn types” could be, I’m going to start with a very simple design sketch. Imagine that we introduced a new type dyn* Trait, which represents the pair of:

  • a pointer-sized value of some type T that implements Trait (the * is meant to convey “pointer-sized”3)
  • a vtable for T: Trait; the drop method in the vtable drops the T value.

For now, don’t get too hung up on the specific syntax. There’s plenty of time to bikeshed, and I’ll talk a bit about how we might truly phase in something like dyn*. For now let’s just talk about what it would be like to use it.

Creating a dyn*

To coerce a value of type T into a dyn* Trait, two constraints must be met:

  • The type T must be pointer-sized or smaller.
  • The type T must implement Trait

Converting an impl to a dyn*

Using dyn*, we can convert impl Trait directly to dyn* Trait. This works fine, because dyn* Trait is Sized. To be truly equivalent to impl Trait, you do actually want a lifetime bound, so that the dyn* can represent references too:

// fn print_me(x: impl Debug) {…} becomes
fn print_me(x: dyn* Debug + _) {

fn print_me_later(x: dyn* Debug + _) -> impl FnOnce() + _ {
    move || println!({x:?})

These two functions can be directly invoked on a usize (e.g., print_me_later(22) compiles). What’s more, they work on references (e.g., print_me_later(&some_type)) or boxed values print_me_later(Box::new(some_type))).

They are also suitable for inclusion in a no-std project, as they don’t directly reference an allocator. Instead, when the dyn* is dropped, we will invoke its destructor from the vtable, which might wind up deallocating memory (but doesn’t have to).

More things are dyn* safe than dyn safe

Many things that were hard for dyn Trait values are trivial for dyn* Trait values:

  • By-value self methods work fine: a dyn* Trait value is sized, so you can move ownership of it just by copying its bytes.
  • Returning Self, as in the Clone trait, works fine.
    • Similarly, the fact that trait Clone: Sized doesn’t mean that dyn* Clone can’t implement Clone, although it does imply that dyn Clone: Clone cannot hold.
  • Function arguments of type impl ArgTrait can be converted to dyn* ArgTrait, so long as ArgTrait is dyn*-safe
  • Returning an impl ArgTrait can return a dyn* ArgTrait.

In short, a large number of the barriers that make traits “not dyn-safe” don’t apply to dyn*. Not all, of course. Traits that take parameters of type Self won’t work (we don’t know that two dyn* Trait types have the same underlying type) and we also can’t support generic methods in many cases (we wouldn’t know how to monomorphize)4.

A catch: dyn* Foo requires Box<impl Foo>: Foo and friends

There is one catch from this whole setup, but I like to think of it is as an opportunity. In order to create a dyn* Trait from a pointer type like Box<Widget>, you need to know that Box<Widget>: Trait, whereas creating a Box<dyn Trait> just requires knowing that Widget: Trait (this follows directly from the fact that the Box is now part of the hidden type).

At the moment, annoyingly, when you define a trait you don’t automatically get any sort of impls for “pointers to types that implement the trait”. Instead, people often define such traits automatically — for example, the Iterator trait has impls like

impl<I> for &mut I
    I: ?Sized + Iterator

impl<I> for Box<I>
    I: ?Sized + Iterator

Many people forget to define such impls, however, which can be annoying in practice (and not just when using dyn).

I’m not totally sure the best way to fix this, but I view it as an opportunity because if we can supply such impls, that would make Rust more ergonomic overall.

One interesting thing: the impls for Iterator that you see above include I: ?Sized, which makes them applicable to Box<dyn Iterator>. But with dyn* Iterator, we are starting from a Box<impl Iterator> type — in other words, the ?Sized bound is not necessary, because we are creating our “dyn” abstraction around the pointer, which is sized. (The ?Sized is not harmful, either, of course, and if we auto-generate such impls, we should include it so that they apply to old-style dyn as well as slice types like [u8].)

Another catch: “shared subsets” of traits

One of the cool things about Rust’s Trait design is that it allows you to combine “read-only” and “modifier” methods into one trait, as in this example:

trait WidgetContainer {
    fn num_components(&self);
    fn add_component(&mut self, c: WidgetComponent);

I can write a function that takes a &mut dyn WidgetContainer and it will be able to invoke both methods. If that function takes &dyn WidgetContainer instead, it can only invoke num_components.

If we don’t do anything else, this flexibility is going to be lost with dyn*. Imagine that we wish to create a dyn* WidgetContainer from some &impl WidgetContainer type. To do that, we would need an impl of WidgetContainer for &T, but we can’t write that code, at least not without panicking:

impl<W> WidgetContainer for &W
    W: WidgetContainer,
    fn num_components(&self) {
        W::num_components(self) // OK

    fn add_component(&mut self, c: WidgetComponent) {
        W::add_component(self, c) // Error!

This problem is not specific to dyn — imagine I have some code that just invokes num_components but which can be called with a &W or with a Rc<W> or with other such types. It’s kind of awkward for me to write a function like that now: the easiest way is to hardcode that it takes &W and then lean on deref-coercions in the caller.

One idea that tmandry and I have been kicking around is the idea of having “views” on traits. The idea would be that you could write something like T: &WidgetContainer to mean “the &self methods of WidgetContainer”. If you had this idea, then you could certainly have

impl<W> &WidgetContainer for &W
    W: WidgetContainer

because you would only need to define num_components (though I would hope you don’t have to write such an impl by hand).

Now, instead of taking a &dyn WidgetContainer, you would take a dyn &WidgetContainer. Similarly, instead of taking an &impl WidgetContainer, you would probably be better off taking a impl &WidgetContainer (this has some other benefits too, as it happens).

A third catch: dyn safety sometimes puts constraints on impls, not just the trait itself

Rust’s current design assumes that you have a single trait definition and we can determine from that trait definition whether or not the trait ought to be dyn safe. But sometimes there are constraints around dyn safety that actually don’t affect the trait but only the impls of the trait. That kind of situation doesn’t work well with “implicit dyn safety”: if you determine that the trait is dyn-safe, you have to impose those limitations on its impls, but maybe the trait wasn’t meant to be dyn-safe.

I think overall it would be better if traits explicitly declared their intent to be dyn-safe or not. The most obvious way to do that would be with a declaration like dyn trait:

dyn trait Foo { }

As a nice side benefit, a declaration like this could also auto-generate impls like impl Foo for Box<impl Foo + ?Sized> and so forth. It would also mean that dyn-safety becomes a semver guarantee.

My main concern here is that I suspect most traits could and should be dyn-safe. I think I’d prefer if one had to opt out from dyn safety instead of opting in. I don’t know what the syntax for that would be, of course, and we’d have to deal with backwards compatibility.

Phasing things in over an edition

If we could start over again, I think I would approach dyn like this:

  • The syntax dyn Trait means a pointer-sized value that implements Trait. Typically a Box or & but sometimes other things.
  • The syntax dyn[T] Trait means “a value that is layout-compatible with T that implements Trait”; dyn Trait is thus sugar for dyn[*const ()] Trait, which we might write more compactly as dyn* Trait.
  • The syntax dyn[T..] Trait means “a value that starts with a prefix of T but has unknown size and implements Trait.
  • The syntax dyn[..] Trait means “some unknown value of a type that implements Trait”.

Meanwhile, we would extend the grammar of a trait bound with some new capabilities:

  • A bound like &Trait<P…> refers to “only the &self methods from Trait”;
  • A bound like &mut Trait<P…> refers to “only the &self and &mut self methods from Trait”;
    • Probably this wants to include Pin<&mut Self> too? I’ve not thought about that.
  • We probably want a way to write a bound like Rc<Trait<P…>> to mean self: Rc<Self> and friends, but I don’t know what that looks like yet. Those kinds of traits are quite unusual.

I would expect that most people would just learn dyn Trait. The use cases for the dyn[] notation are far more specialized and would come later.

Interestingly, we could phase in this syntax in Rust 2024 if we wanted. The idea would be that we move existing uses of dyn to the explicit form in prep for the new edition:

  • &dyn Trait, for example, would become dyn* Trait + ‘_
  • Box<dyn Trait> would become dyn* Trait (note that a ’static bound is implied today; this might be worth reconsidering, but that’s a separate question).
  • other uses of dyn Trait would become dyn[…] Trait

Then, in Rust 2024, we would rewrite dyn* Trait to just dyn Trait with an “edition idom lint”.


Whew! This was a long post. Let me summarize what we covered:

  • If dyn Trait encapsulated some value of pointer size that implements Trait and not some value of unknown size:
    • We could expand the set of things that are dyn safe by quite a lot without needing clever hacks:
      • methods that take by-value self: fn into_foo(self, …)
      • methods with parameters of impl Trait type (as long as Trait is dyn safe): fn foo(…, impl Trait, …)
      • methods that return impl Trait values: fn iter(&self) -> impl Iterator
      • methods that return Self types: fn clone(&self) -> Self
  • That would raise some problems we have to deal with, but all of them are things that would be useful anyway:
    • You’d need dyn &Trait and things to “select” sets of methods.
    • You’d need a more ergonomic way to ensure that Box<Trait>: Trait and so forth.
  • We could plausibly transition to this model for Rust 2024 by introducing two syntaxes, dyn* (pointer-sized) and dyn[..] (unknown size) and then changing what dyn means.

There are a number of details to work out, but among the most prominent are:

  • Should we declare dyn-safe traits explicitly? (I think yes)
    • What “bridging” impls should we create when we do so? (e.g., to cover Box<impl Trait>: Trait etc)
  • How exactly do &Trait bounds work — do you get impls automatically? Do you have to write them?

Appendix A: Going even more crazy: dyn[T] for arbitrary prefixes

dyn* is pretty useful. But we could actually generalize it. You could imagine writing dyn[T] to mean “a value whose layout can be read as T. What we’ve called dyn* Trait would thus be equivalent to dyn[*const ()] Trait. This more general version allows us to package up larger values — for example, you could write dyn[[usize; 2]] Trait to mean a “two-word value”.

You could even imagine writing dyn[T] where the T meant that you can safely access the underlying value as a T instance. This would give access to common fields that the implementing type must expose or other such things. Systems programming hacks often lean on clever things like this. This would be a bit tricky to reconcile with cases where the T is a type like usize that is just indicating how many bytes of data there are, since if you are going to allow the dyn[T] to be treated like a &mut T the user could go crazy overwriting values in ways that are definitely not valid. So we’d have to think hard about this to make it work, that’s why I left it for an Appendix.

Appendix B: The “other” big problems with dyn

I think that the designs in this post address a number of the big problems with dyn:

  • You can’t use it like impl
  • Lots of useful trait features are not dyn-safe
  • You have to write ?Sized on impls to make them work

But it leaves a few problems unresolved. One of the biggest to my mind is the interaction with auto traits (and lifetimes, actually). With generic parameters like T: Debug, I don’t have to talk explicitly about whether T is Send or not or whether T contains lifetimes. I can just write write a generic type like struct MyWriter<W> where W: Write { w: W, ... }. Users of MyWriter know what W is, so they can determine whether or not MyWriter<Foo>: Send based on whether Foo: Send, and they also can understand that MyWriter<&'a Foo> includes references with the lifetime 'a. In contrast, if we did struct MyWriter { w: dyn* Write, ... }, that dyn* Write type is hiding the underlying data. As Rust currently stands, it implies that MyWriter it not Send and that it does not contain references. We don’t have a good way for MyWriter to declare that it is “send if the writer you gave me is send” and use dyn*. That’s an interesting problem! But orthogonal, I think, from the problems addressed in this blog post.

  1. But, you are thinking, what about alloca? The answer is that alloca isn’t really a good option. For one thing, it doesn’t work on all targets, but in particular it doesn’t work for async functions, which require a fixed size stack frame. It also doesn’t let you return things back up the stack, at least not easily. ↩︎

  2. Also, cramertj apparently had this idea a long time back but we didn’t really understand it. Ah well, sometimes it goes like that — you have to reinvent something to realize how brilliant the original inventor really was. ↩︎

  3. In truth, I also just think “dyn-star” sounds cool. I’ve always been jealous of the A* algorithm and wanted to name something in a similar way. Now’s my chance! Ha ha! ↩︎

  4. Obviously, we would be lifting this partly to accommoate impl Trait arguments. I think we could lift this restriction in more cases but it’s going to take a bit more design. ↩︎