On Sun Mar 16, 2025 at 1:55 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > 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? No change required, with my reply above I intended to take my complaint away :) --- Cheers, Benno
