Optionally implement bytemuck::Zeroable, for safe zero-allocation
#287
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
|
Do you think you could send a PR to bytemuck to support atomic types? That way we can just use |
|
Can you document the feature in README. It's a bit confusing that we have both |
|
Having the feature called "bytemuck" works on nightly with |
|
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #286.
We only use
derive(Zeroable)in one place, as the atomic integer types don't implementbytemuck::Zeroableat time of writing. This appears to be an oversight inbytemuck.The
Zeroabletrait only specifies that the type can be created with an all-zeroes bit pattern, and so this cannot be abused to overwrite the locks with all-zeroes (although doing so would require&mutaccess anyway).