Stabilize the alloc crate.

This crate provides the subset of the standard library’s functionality that requires a global allocator (unlike the core crate) and an allocation error handler, but not other operating system capabilities (unlike the std crate).


Background: no_std

In some environments the std crate is not available: micro-controllers that don’t have an operating system at all, kernel-space code, etc. The #![no_std] attribute allows a crate to not link to std implicitly, using core instead with only the subset of functionality that doesn’t have a runtime dependency.

no_std with an allocator

The core crate does not assume even the presence of heap memory, and so it excludes standard library types like Vec<T>. However some environments do have a heap memory allocator (possibly as malloc and free C functions), even if they don’t have files or threads or something that could be called an operating system or kernel. Or one could be defined in a Rust library ultimately backed by fixed-size static byte array.

An intermediate subset of the standard library smaller than “all of std” but larger than “only core” can serve such environments.


In 2018 there is a coordinated push toward making no_std application compatible with Stable Rust. As of this writing not all of that work is completed yet. For example, #[panic_implementation] is required for no_std but still unstable. So it may seem that this RFC does not unlock anything new, as no_std application still need to be on Nightly anyway.

The immediate impact can be found in the library ecosystem. Many general-purpose libraries today are compatible with Stable Rust and also have potential users who ask for them to be compatible with no_std environments.

For a library that is fundamentally about using for example TCP sockets or threads, this may not be possible.

For a library that happens to only use parts of std that are also in core (and are willing to commit to keep doing so), this is relatively easy: add #![no_std] to the crate, and change std:: in paths to core::.

And here again, there is the intermediate case of a library that needs Vec<T> or something else that involves heap memory, but not other parts of std that are not in core. Today, in order to not lose compatibility with Stable, such a library needs to make compatibility with no_std an opt-in feature flag:


#[cfg(feature = "no_std")] extern crate alloc;
#[cfg(not(feature = "no_std"))] extern crate std as alloc;

use alloc::vec::Vec;

But publishing a library that uses unstable features, even optionally, comes with the expectation that it will be promptly updated whenever those features change. Some maintainers are not willing to commit to this.

With this RFC, the library’s code can be simplified to:


extern crate alloc;

use alloc::vec::Vec;

… and perhaps more importantly, maintainers can rely on the stability promise made by the Rust project.

Guide-level explanation

For libraries

When using #![no_std] in a crate, that crate does not implicitly depend on std but depends on core instead. For example:

-use std::cell::RefCell;
+use core::cell::RefCell;

APIs that require a memory allocator are not available in core. In order to use them, no_std Rust code must explicitly depend on the alloc crate:

#[macro_use] extern crate alloc;

use core::cell::RefCell;
use alloc::rc::Rc;

Note: #[macro_use] imports the vec! and format! macros.

Like std and core, this dependency does not need to be declared in Cargo.toml since alloc is part of the standard library and distributed with Rust.

The implicit prelude (set of items that are automatically in scope) for #![no_std] crates does not assume the presence of the alloc crate, unlike the default prelude. So such crates may need to import either that prelude or specific items explicitly. For example:

use alloc::prelude::*;

// Or

use alloc::string::ToString;
use alloc::vec::Vec;

For programs¹

[¹] … and other roots of a dependency graph, such as staticlibs.

Compared to core, the alloc crate makes two additional requirements:

  • A global heap memory allocator.

  • An allocation error handler (that is not allowed to return). This is called for example by Vec::push, whose own API is infallible, when the allocator fails to allocate memory.

std provides both of these. So as long as it is present in the dependency graph, nothing else is required even if some crates of the graph use alloc without std.

If std is not present they need to be defined explicitly, somewhere in the dependency graph (not necessarily in the root crate).

  • The #[global_allocator] attribute, on a static item of a type that implements the GlobalAlloc trait, defines the global allocator. It is stable in Rust 1.28.

  • Tracking issue #51540 propose the #[alloc_error_handler] attribute for a function with signature fn foo(_: Layout) -> !. As of this writing this attribute is implemented but unstable.

Reference-level explanation

The alloc crate already exists (marked unstable), and every public API in it is already available in std.

Except for the alloc::prelude module, since PR #51569 the module structure is a subset of that of std: every path that starts with alloc:: is still valid and point to the same item after replacing that prefix with std:: (assuming both crates are available).

The concrete changes proposed by this RFC are:

  • Stabilize extern crate alloc; (that is, change #![unstable] to #![stable] near the top of src/liballoc/

  • Stabilize the alloc::prelude module and its contents (which is only re-exports of items that are themselves already stable).

  • Stabilize the fact that the crate makes no more and no less than the two requirements/assumptions of a global allocator and an allocation error handler being provided for it, as described above.

    The exact mechanism for providing the allocation error handler is not stabilized by this RFC.

    In particular, this RFC proposes that the presence of a source of randomness is not a requirement that the alloc crate can make. This is contrary to what PR #51846 proposed, and means that std::collections::hash_map::RandomState cannot be moved into alloc.

Tracking issue #27783 tracks “the std facade”: crates whose contents are re-exported in std but also exist separately. Other such crates have already been moved, merged, or stabilized, such that alloc is the only remaining unstable one. Therefore #27783 can serve as the tracking issue for this RFC and can be closed once it is implemented.

The structure of the standard library is therefore:

  • core: has (almost) no runtime dependency, every Rust crate is expected to depend on this.
  • alloc: requires a global memory allocator, either specified through the #[global_allocator] attribute or provided by the std crate.
  • std: re-exports the contents of core and alloc so that non-no_std crate do not need care about what’s in what crate between these three. Depends on various operating system features such as files, threads, etc.
  • proc-macro: depends on parts of the compiler, typically only used at build-time (in procedural macro crates or Cargo build scripts).


Tracking issue #27783 is the tracking issue for the alloc crate and, historically, some other crates. Although I could not find much discussion of that, I believe it has been kept unstable so far because of uncertainty of what the eventual desired crate structure for the standard library is, given infinite time and resources.

In particular, should we have a single crate with some mechanism for selectively disabling or enabling some of the crate’s components, depending on which runtime dependencies are available in targeted environments? In that world, the no_std attribute and standard library crates other than std would be unnecessary.

By stabilizing the alloc crate, we commit to having it − and its public API − exist “forever”.

Rationale and alternatives

Single-crate standard library

The core and the no_std attribute are already stable, so in a sense it’s already too late for the “pure” version of the vision described above where std really is the only standard library crate that exists.

It may still be desirable to regroup the standard library into one crate, and it is probably still possible. The core crate could be replaced with a set of pub use reexport to maintain compatibility with existing users. Whatever the eventual status for core is, we can do the same for alloc. PR #51569 mentioned above also hopes to make this easier.

While we want to leave the possibility open for it, at the time of this writing there are no concrete plans for implementing such a standard library crates unification any time soon. So the only alternative to this RFC seems to be leaving heap allocation for no_std in unstable limbo for the foreseeable future.

Require randomness

PR #51569 proposed adding a source of randomness to the other requirements made by the alloc crate. This would allow moving std::collections::hash_map::RandomState, and therefore HashMap (which has RandomState as a default type parameter), into alloc.

This RFC chooses not to do this because it would make it difficult to use for example Vec<T> in environments where a source of randomness is not easily available.

I hope that the language will eventually make it possible to have HashMap in alloc without a default hasher type parameter, and have the same type in std with its current default.

Although I am not necessarily in favor of continuing the increase of the number of crates in the standard library, another solution for HashMap in no_std might be another intermediate crate that depends on alloc and adds the randomness source requirement.

Additionally, with this RFC it should be possible to make compatible with Stable Rust. The downside of that crate is that although based on a copy of the same code, it is a different type incompatible in the type system with std::collections::HashMap.

Prior art

I am not aware of a mechanism similar to no_std in another programming language.

Newlib is a C library for “embedded” systems that typically don’t have an operating system. It does provide a memory allocator through malloc and related functions, unconditionally.

Unresolved questions

  • Did I miss something in PR #51569 that makes alloc not a subset of std? A double-check from someone else would be appreciated.

  • Should the crate be renamed before stabilization? It doesn’t have exclusivity for memory-allocation-related APIs, since the core::alloc module exists. What really characterizes it is the assumption that a global allocator is available. The name global_alloc was proposed. (Although the crate doesn’t only contain the global allocator itself.)

  • Should the alloc::prelude module be moved to alloc::prelude::v1? This would make the alloc module structure a subset of std without exception. However, since this prelude is not inserted automatically, it is less likely that we’ll ever have a second version of it. In that sense it is closer to std::io::prelude than std::prelude::v1. Done in PR #58933.

  • In addition to being a subset of std, should the alloc crate (by itself) be a super-set of core? That is, should it reexport everything that is defined in core? See PR #58175 which proposes reexporting core::sync::atomic in alloc::sync.