Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proc macro tweaks #97004
Proc macro tweaks #97004
Changes from all commits
2469ed0
a61a85e
e02789c
2ece157
1a9514d
dbdc7dd
bc70d0d
9a785e0
c2c5057
f5c9c12
e6fa19a
41c10dd
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the record, I think the reason I made this generic was to avoid accidentally doing the wrong thing because the types happened to match up (especially since there's
unsafe
code here) but I'll review this carefully and hopefully this is fine.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would any type other than
u8
make sense here? Doesn't seem like it, especially given thatBuffer<u8>
was hardcoded in a bunch of places anyway.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's not what I meant, but rather that writing parametric code can sometimes help avoid making mistakes (which can be catastrophic in
unsafe
code).It doesn't make sense at all from the perspective of whether e.g. a C++ container might be templated or not, but in does in Rust because of the type-checking in the generic form.
Anyway it doesn't matter much, I was just explaining that
Foo<T>
can still make sense even if it's only ever used as a singleFoo<Concrete>
and the generic nature "isn't taken advantage of".Hopefully we can remove this
Buffer
abstraction and move more to e.g. a model closer to read/write syscalls (orio::{Read,Write}
traits I suppose, at a higher level).