I've got a struct defined that has a function which defines a static lifetime:
impl MyStruct {
pub fn doSomething(&'static self) {
// Some code goes here
}
}
I'm consuming it from main like so:
fn main() {
let obj = MyStruct {};
obj.doSomething();
}
It's intended for the doSomething
call to block and execute for the lifetime of the application.
I'm running into issues with the lifetime checks where it's stating that it may outlive the main
function, which seems strange to me as once main
is complete the application should exit.
Is there a way to achieve this?
The space for the static variable is allocated only one time and this is used for the entirety of the program. Once this variable is declared, it exists till the program executes. So, the lifetime of a static variable is the lifetime of the program.
A static variable declaration is only executed once, the first time the function is executed. A static variable is initialized only once (since this is part of the declaration process) and will be initialized to 0 unless the programmer designates otherwise.
A static variable stays in the memory and retains its value until the program execution ends irrespective of its scope. Scope is of four types: file, block, function and prototype scope. Lifetime is of three types: static, auto and dynamic lifetime.
In computer programming, a static variable is a variable that has been allocated "statically", meaning that its lifetime (or "extent") is the entire run of the program.
The primary way to create a reference that has the 'static
lifetime is to make the variable static
. A static variable is one that can be created at compile time:
struct MyStruct;
impl MyStruct {
pub fn do_something(&'static self) {}
}
static OBJ: MyStruct = MyStruct;
fn main() {
OBJ.do_something();
}
As Rust's constant evaluation story improves, this will be more common, but it will never allow configuration at runtime.
A far less common method is to deliberately leak memory, producing a reference that will last "forever". This should be discouraged because leaking memory isn't a good thing:
fn main() {
let obj = Box::leak(Box::new(MyStruct));
obj.do_something();
}
There's also the possibility of creating a singleton:
as once
main
is complete the application should exit.
Perhaps, but the compiler doesn't treat main
specially for lifetime purposes.
hyper requires a static runtime when running the server and processing each request.
No, it doesn't. It has a bound of : 'static
, which means that any references passed in must be 'static
, but you don't have to pass in a bare reference at all.
For patterns like this, the most common thing is to pass in something like an Arc
. This allows sharing of the underlying resource.
pub fn do_something<F, T>(f: F)
where
F: Fn() -> T + 'static,
T: 'static,
{
// "spawn" 3 threads
f();
f();
f();
}
struct MyStruct;
static OBJ: MyStruct = MyStruct;
fn main() {
// OK
do_something(|| &OBJ);
// Not OK
let another = MyStruct;
do_something(|| &another);
// OK
use std::sync::Arc;
let shared = Arc::new(MyStruct);
do_something(move || shared.clone());
}
You can even use interior mutability if you wanted dynamic reconfiguration.
See also:
The naive way to do this is with a static
variable, but it will require unsafe code if you need to actually set the value inside your main
function:
static mut OBJ: MyStruct = MyStruct;
fn main() {
unsafe {
OBJ = MyStruct {};
OBJ.doSomething();
}
}
It's also unsafe
to do pretty much anything with a mutable static thereafter.
The much better way to do it is to let a library (lazy_static
) take care of the unsafe code.
use lazy_static::lazy_static;
fn main() {
lazy_static!{
static ref OBJ: MyStruct = MyStruct {};
}
OBJ.doSomething();
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With