On Sat Mar 15, 2025 at 4:37 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:30 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri Mar 14, 2025 at 9:44 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:20 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri Mar 7, 2025 at 10:58 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote: >> >> > /// Returns a pointer to the struct containing the [`Work<T, ID>`] field. >> >> > /// >> >> > /// # Safety >> >> > /// >> >> > /// The pointer must point at a [`Work<T, ID>`] field in a struct of type `Self`. >> >> > - #[inline] >> >> > - unsafe fn work_container_of(ptr: *mut Work<T, ID>) -> *mut Self >> >> > - where >> >> > - Self: Sized, >> >> >> >> This bound is required in order to allow the usage of `dyn HasWork` (ie >> >> object safety), so it should stay. >> >> >> >> Maybe add a comment explaining why it's there. >> > >> > I guess a doctest would be better, but I still don't understand why >> > the bound is needed. Sorry, can you cite something or explain in more >> > detail please? >> >> Here is a link: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/traits.html#dyn-compatibility >> >> But I realized that the trait wasn't object safe to begin with due to >> the `OFFSET` associated constant. So I'm not sure we need this. Alice, >> do you need `dyn HasWork`? > > I wrote a simple test: [...] > so I don't think adding the Sized bound makes sense - we'd end up > adding it on every item in the trait. Yeah the `Sized` bound was probably to make the cast work, so let's remove it. --- Cheers, Benno
