dead-code false positive on named structs with a never field

[ia0]

Code

#![feature(never_type)]

pub struct JustEmpty(!);

pub struct FancyEmpty {
    _empty: !,
}

Current output

warning: struct `FancyEmpty` is never constructed
 --> src/lib.rs:5:12
  |
5 | pub struct FancyEmpty {
  |            ^^^^^^^^^^
  |
  = note: `#[warn(dead_code)]` on by default

warning: `playground` (lib) generated 1 warning

Desired output

Compiles without warnings.

Rationale and extra context

The struct is meant to not be constructible. Also the behavior is incoherent between tuple structs (correct behavior) and named structs (incorrect behavior).

Also, this is a regression, this didn't use to be the case.

Other cases

No response

Rust Version

rustc 1.82.0-nightly (92c6c0380 2024-07-21)
binary: rustc
commit-hash: 92c6c03805408a1a261b98013304e9bbf59ee428
commit-date: 2024-07-21
host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
release: 1.82.0-nightly
LLVM version: 18.1.7

Anything else?

No response

[veera-sivarajan]

@rustbot label +F-never_Type +D-inconsistent

[mu001999]

We will also get such warnings for private structs with fields of never type (play):

#![feature(never_type)]

struct JustEmpty(!);

struct FancyEmpty {
    _empty: !,
}

The struct is never constructed although it is not constructible. This behavior is expected and is not a regression. Did you meet any cases using this way in real world?

---

For the incoherent behavior, we also have:

pub struct T1(()); // no warning

pub struct T2 { // warning never constructed
    _x: (),
}

This because we only skip positional ZST (PhantomData and generics), this policy is also applied for never read fields:

struct T1(()); // no warning

struct T2 {
    x: (), // warning never read field
}

fn main() {
    let _t1 = T1(());
    let _t2 = T2 {
        x: (),
    };
}

[ia0]

Did you meet any cases using this way in real world?

https://github.com/google/wasefire/blob/4c042d8e8ae68a9fef2a600aca524c4b628c39d9/crates/board/src/usb/serial.rs#L76-L81

This behavior is expected

Can you elaborate in which sense it is expected? I can understand that it is expected given the current implementation of Rust. It seems between stable and nightly a new dead-code lint was implemented. This lint is expected for inhabited types. However it has false positives on inhabited types, i.e. types that are only meant for type-level usage (for example to implement a trait).

I agree we should probably categorize this issue as a false positive of a new lint rather than a regression (technically).

For the incoherent behavior

Thanks, I can see the idea behind it. I'm not convinced about it though, but it doesn't bother me either. So let's just keep this issue focused on the false positive rather than the inconsistent behavior.

[mu001999]

@ia0 How do you think about private structs with fields of never type?

[ia0]

@ia0 How do you think about private structs with fields of never type?

I would consider it the same as public structs, because they can still be "constructed" at the type-level. So they are dynamic dead--code but not dead-code since they are used statically. It would be dead-code though if the type is never used (both in dynamic code and static code, i.e. types).

[ia0]

Actually, thinking about this issue, I don't think this is a false positive only for the never type. I think the whole lint is wrong. The fact that the type is empty is just a proof that constructing it at term-level is not necessary for the type to be "alive" (aka usable). This could also be the case with non-empty types. A lot of people just use unit types for type-level usage only (instead of empty types). So my conclusion would be that linting a type to be dead-code because it is never constructed is brittle as it can't be sure that the type is not meant to be constructed at term-level (and thus only used at type-level). Adding #[allow(dead_code)] is not a solution because if the type is actually not used at all (including in types) then we actually want the warning. Here is an example:

// This type is not dead code. It is simply meant to be used at type-level.
pub struct Foo<T> {
    _x: T,
}

pub trait Bar {
    fn bar();
}

impl<T> Bar for Foo<T> {
    fn bar() {}
}

#[test]
fn test() {
    Foo::<i32>::bar();
}

The same thing with a private struct:

// This type is not dead code. It is simply used at type-level (to select an trait implementation).
struct Foo<T> {
    _x: T,
}

pub trait Bar {
    fn bar();
}

impl<T> Bar for Foo<T> {
    fn bar() {}
}

pub fn test() {
    Foo::<i32>::bar();
}

And now actual dead code:

// This type is dead code. It is private and not used (both at term- and type-level).
struct Foo<T> {
    _x: T,
}

pub trait Bar {
    fn bar();
}

// This doesn't count as usage but as definition.
impl<T> Bar for Foo<T> {
    fn bar() {}
}

[mu001999]

Actually, thinking about this issue, I don't think this is a false positive only for the never type. I think the whole lint is wrong. The fact that the type is empty is just a proof that constructing it at term-level is not necessary for the type to be "alive" (aka usable). This could also be the case with non-empty types. A lot of people just use unit types for type-level usage only (instead of empty types). So my conclusion would be that linting a type to be dead-code because it is never constructed is brittle as it can't be sure that the type is not meant to be constructed at term-level (and thus only used at type-level). Adding #[allow(dead_code)] is not a solution because if the type is actually not used at all (including in types) then we actually want the warning. Here is an example:

// This type is not dead code. It is simply meant to be used at type-level.
pub struct Foo<T> {
    _x: T,
}

pub trait Bar {
    fn bar();
}

impl<T> Bar for Foo<T> {
    fn bar() {}
}

#[test]
fn test() {
    Foo::<i32>::bar();
}

@ia0 I think a better way is:

// This type is not dead code. It is simply meant to be used at type-level.
pub struct Foo<T> {
    x: std::marker::PhantomData<T>,
}

pub trait Bar {
    fn bar();
}

impl<T> Bar for Foo<T> {
    fn bar() {}
}

#[test]
fn test() {
    Foo::<i32>::bar();
}

PhantomData is usually used to do such things like just a proof. Maybe we can add a help for this case.

[mu001999]

But I agree that we shouldn't emit warnings for pub structs with any fields of never type (and also unit type), this is an intentional behavior.

[ia0]

I think a better way is

Oh yes good point. So all good to proceed with adding never type to the list of special types.