-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pad size of TypeId and remove structural equality #99189
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
642b8e1
Pad size of typeid and remove structuraleq
carbotaniuman 61e9395
Actually delete derive
carbotaniuman 0bb7737
Add stability attrs
carbotaniuman 7985d93
Update tests
carbotaniuman b35362c
Try MaybeUninit
carbotaniuman 34b2cce
Impl traits manually
carbotaniuman e531a9a
Fullly qualify
carbotaniuman ee6d19b
Fix
carbotaniuman 53dcb86
Dead code warnings
carbotaniuman File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we should lose the ability to compare type ids in CTFE. Comparison is almost the only thing you can do with a type id. It's possible to make
==
work here, but if that's tricky to do without potentially accidentally stabilizing it in CTFE then I think we should look at adding an unstable const function to compare them.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that
==
still works in CTFE, it's just pattern matching that's no longer allowed.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you know if we already have a test case that covers that @carbotaniuman?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear that
TypeId::of::<T>() == TypeId::of::<U>()
works in CTFE as ofnightly
today:As far as I can tell that would still be the case after this PR, except that we'd also lose the ability to compare type ids by matching them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it looks like I was mistaken here, and I'll likely reopen this PR with more substantial work behind it.