Participation of PhantomData in dropck is absolutely crucial, as explained in the Nomicon. The RFC fails to explain how the standard library should implement Vec if PhantomData does not participate in dropck.

So I think this is a non-starter of a proposal.

(Also the 'rendered' link is broken.)

we're convinced PhantomData isn't required for dropck today, except for variance and auto traits, specifically because of nonparametric drop.

but we'll be honest: we haven't actually tested it. we'd be extremely surprised if the following were somehow wrong tho:

/// A mostly-no-op wrapper around `T` which happens to be explicitly `Drop`.
struct Wrapper<T>(ManuallyDrop<T>);

unsafe impl<#[may_dangle] T> Drop for Wrapper<T> {
  fn drop(&mut self) {
    unsafe {
      ManuallyDrop::drop(&mut self.0);
    }
  }
}

edit: ah, looks like may_dangle is still parametric, so we're not quite ready to launch this RFC yet. (and yes, the above is broken, because ManuallyDrop is special and evades (parametric) dropck.)

do we just

1. replace this whole RFC with a refinement of may_dangle or
2. keep it and also make a refinement of may_dangle or
3. close it (and maybe make a refinement of may_dangle?)
4. edit: alternatively, we could tighten the scope of this RFC, with the goal of only fixing non-Drop types with drop glue leak may_dangle implementation details on stable rust#103318, without the risk of altering the behaviour of may_dangle, in preparation for a future, separate refinement of may_dangle.

(do we want a refinement of may_dangle?)

we're just gonna close this for now but we plan on revisiting it later.