Cgo add cbytes implementation (rebased version of #3318) #4470
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixed typo in comment. Updated tests.
Added round-trip test for C.CBytes.
Co-authored-by: Ayke <aykevanlaethem@gmail.com>
Corrected the data type.
Signed-off-by: leongross <leon.gross@9elements.com>
|
@leongross thank you very much for bringing this PR back to life. Thank you @waj334 for originally working on it. Also, thanks @aykevl for the additional help. |
|
Should we squash commits on this PR, or just rebase it in as separate commits? |
|
Since this are quite a lot of commits for such a small change I propose to squash it. |
|
Thanks everyone! Now squash/merging. |
leongross
added a commit
to leongross/tinygo
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2024
…inygo-org#4470) cgo: added CBytes implementation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is a rebased version of PR #3318. It was mentioned in issue #4284. Rebased seems to have worked flawlessly, all tests/CI passed.