Add std::num::NonZeroU32 and eleven other concrete types (one for each primitive integer type) to replace and deprecate core::nonzero::NonZero<T>. (Non-zero/non-null raw pointers are available through std::ptr::NonNull<U>.)


The &T and &mut T types are represented in memory as pointers, and the type system ensures that they’re always valid. In particular, they can never be NULL. Since at least 2013, rustc has taken advantage of that fact to optimize the memory representation of Option<&T> and Option<&mut T> to be the same as &T and &mut T, with the forbidden NULL value indicating Option::None.

Later (still before Rust 1.0), a core::nonzero::NonZero<T> generic wrapper type was added to extend this optimization to raw pointers (as used in types like Box<T> or Vec<T>) and integers, encoding in the type system that they can not be null/zero. Its API today is:

#[lang = "non_zero"]
pub struct NonZero<T: Zeroable>(T);

impl<T: Zeroable> NonZero<T> {
    pub const unsafe fn new_unchecked(x: T) -> Self { NonZero(x) }
    pub fn new(x: T) -> Option<Self> { if x.is_zero() { None } else { Some(NonZero(x)) }}
    pub fn get(self) -> T { self.0 }

pub unsafe trait Zeroable {
    fn is_zero(&self) -> bool;

impl Zeroable for /* {{i,u}{8, 16, 32, 64, 128, size}, *{const,mut} T where T: ?Sized} */

The tracking issue for these unstable APIs is rust#27730.

std::ptr::NonNull was stabilized in in Rust 1.25, wrapping NonZero further for raw pointers and adding pointer-specific APIs.


With NonNull covering pointers, the remaining use cases for NonZero are integers.

One problem of the current API is that it is unclear what happens or what should happen to NonZero<T> or Option<NonZero<T>> when T is some type other than a raw pointer or a primitive integer. In particular, crates outside of std can implement Zeroable for their arbitrary types since it is a public trait.

To avoid this question entirely, this RFC proposes replacing the generic type and trait with twelve concrete types in std::num, one for each primitive integer type. This is similar to the existing atomic integer types like std::sync::atomic::AtomicU32.

Guide-level explanation

When an integer value can never be zero because of the way an algorithm works, this fact can be encoded in the type system by using for example the NonZeroU32 type instead of u32.

This enables code receiving such a value to safely make some assumptions, for example that dividing by this value will not cause a attempt to divide by zero panic. This may also enable the compiler to make some memory optimizations, for example Option<NonZeroU32> might take no more space than u32 (with None represented as zero).

Reference-level explanation

A new private macro_rules! macro is defined and used in core::num that expands to twelve sets of items like below, one for each of:

  • u8
  • u16
  • u32
  • u64
  • u128
  • usize
  • i8
  • i16
  • i32
  • i64
  • i128
  • isize

These types are also re-exported in std::num.

#[derive(Copy, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, Ord, PartialOrd, Hash)]
pub struct NonZeroU32(NonZero<u32>);

impl NonZeroU32 {
    pub const unsafe fn new_unchecked(n: u32) -> Self { Self(NonZero(n)) }
    pub fn new(n: u32) -> Option<Self> { if n == 0 { None } else { Some(Self(NonZero(n))) }}
    pub fn get(self) -> u32 { self.0.0 }

impl fmt::Debug for NonZeroU32 {
    fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
        fmt::Debug::fmt(&self.get(), f)

// Similar impls for Display, Binary, Octal, LowerHex, and UpperHex

Additionally, the core::nonzero module and its contents (NonZero and Zeroable) are deprecated with a warning message that suggests using ptr::NonNull or num::NonZero* instead.

A couple release cycles later, the module is made private to libcore and reduced to:

/// Implementation detail of `ptr::NonNull` and `num::NonZero*`
#[lang = "non_zero"]
#[derive(Copy, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, Ord, PartialOrd, Hash)]
pub(crate) struct NonZero(pub(crate) T);

impl<T: CoerceUnsized<U>> CoerceUnsized<NonZero<U>> for NonZero<T> {}

The memory layout of Option<&T> is a documented guarantee of the Rust language. This RFC does not propose extending this guarantee to these new types. For example, size_of::<Option<NonZeroU32>>() == size_of::<NonZeroU32>() may or may not be true. It happens to be in current rustc, but an alternative Rust implementation could define num::NonZero* purely as library types.


This adds to the ever-expanding API surface of the standard library.

Rationale and alternatives

  • Memory layout optimization for non-zero integers mostly exist in rustc today because their implementation is very close (or the same) as for non-null pointers. But maybe they’re not useful enough to justify any dedicated public API. core::nonzero could be deprecated and made private without adding num::NonZero*, with only ptr::NonNull exposing such functionality.

  • On the other hand, maybe zero is “less special” for integers than NULL is for pointers. Maybe instead of num::NonZero* we should consider some other feature to enable creating integer wrapper types that restrict values to an arbitrary sub-range (making this known to the compiler for memory layout optimizations), similar to how PR #45225 restricts the primitive type char to 0 ..= 0x10FFFF. Making entire bits available unlocks more potential future optimizations than a single value.

    However no design for such a feature has been proposed, whereas NonZero is already implemented. The author’s position is that num::NonZero* should be added as it is still useful and can be stabilized such sooner, and it does not prevent adding another language feature later.

  • In response to “what if Zeroable is implemented for other types” it was suggested to prevent such impls by making the trait permanently-unstable, or effectively private (by moving it in a private module and keeping it pub trait to fool the private in public lint). The author feels that such abuses of the stability or privacy systems do not belong in stable APIs. (Stable APIs that mention traits like RangeArgument that are not stable yet but have a path to stabilization are less of an abuse.)

  • Still, we could decide on some answer to “Zeroable for arbitrary types”, implement and test it, stabilize NonZero<T> and Zeroable as-is (re-exported in std), and not add num::NonZero*.

  • Instead of std::num the new types could be in some other location, such as the modules named after their respective primitive types. For example std::u32::NonZeroU32 or std::u32::NonZero. The former looks redundant, and the latter might lead to code that looks ambiguous if the type itself is imported instead of importing the module and using a qualified u32::NonZero path.

  • We could drop the NonZeroI* wrappers for signed integers. They’re included in this RFC because it’s easy, but every use of non-zero integers the author has seen so far has been with unsigned ones. This would cut the number of new types from 12 to 6.

Unresolved questions

Should the memory layout of e.g. Option<NonZeroU32> be a language guarantee?

Discussion of the design of a new language feature for integer types restricted to an arbitrary sub-range (see second unresolved question) is out of scope for this RFC. Discussing the potential existence of such a feature as a reason not to add non-zero integer types is in scope.