U8String VS rust-playground

Writing performance-sensitive code in C and calling it via interop used to be the way to go during .NET Framework days but since then has become a performance trap.

Especially for small methods, calling them through interop is a deoptimization because they cannot be inlined, and involve GC frame transition (which you can suppress) as well as an indirect jump and maybe interop stub unless you are statically linking the dependency into your AOT deployment. In case the arguments are not blittable to C - marshalling too.

It is also complicates the publishing process because you have to build both .NET and C parts and then package them together, considering the matrix of [win, linux, macos] x [x64, arm64], it turns into quite an unpleasant experience.

Instead, the recommended approach is just continuing to write C# code, except with pointer and/or ref based code. This is what CoreLib itself does for the most performance-sensitive bits[0]. Naturally, it intentionally looks ugly like in Rust, but you can easily fix it with a few extension methods[1].

[0]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/Sy...

[1]: https://github.com/U8String/U8String/blob/main/Sources/Share...

If you have an object that's !Unpin, then Miri will not apply uniqueness rules to anything containing it [0], including boxes and &mut references. (In the example code, replacing the PhantomPinned with a () will make Miri complain again.) This is considered a temporary (if long-lived) measure to allow async executors to manipulate pinned futures without invalidating all their references and whatnot. Thus, it might be seen as undetected UB, in lieu of a permanent solution.

[0] https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That would be true if you used `Vec::clear` too, it doesn't allocate a new vector. My point was that you still end up running Drop implementations with RepeatedField, just not all at once. See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

That's a valid Unix path, but rust's quoting does nothing to stop it: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Self-referential structs work fine in Rust and always have.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The compiler will correctly prevent you from moving the value.

The other way to have a struct that starts out as non-self-referential and then becomes self-referential can be achieved with `unsafe` and `Pin::new_unchecked`, which is how `async {}` is handled.

In rust as currently stands: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

On the other hand, both this wrapper and yours are counterproductive if the element size is dynamic (e.g. perhaps you're dealing with some nonsense like:)

    struct ITableColumn {

Overflow checks turn into two's compliments' wrapping, but that's only considered acceptable because bounds checks are not turned off.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds unnecessarily complicated and why I don't use Rust for any serious work.

This demonstrates the ABA problem in safe Rust: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Substitute the sleep with a combination of doing computation/work and the OS thread scheduler, and you can see how the bug surfaces.

You can also try Rust online using the Rust playground: https://play.rust-lang.org/

(Click ... beside build to get assembly) https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edit...

Unfortunately the go playground doesn't seem to support emitting assembly?