On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 2:12 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 2:06 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > It's already removed, right? Ping. Can you help me understand what change, if any, you think is required?
