You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After looking through the issues in syntex (serde-deprecated/syntex#45), I am fairly sure it is their issue not yours, but I thought I would ask anyway.
The #[repr(C)] structs and extern functions aren't converted to the C header.
I also understand you are rewriting the code into a more general framework. Will that change the way macros are/aren't expanded?
A long term plan / ambitious idea
In the far future I think it would be great if rustc allowed multiple compilation 'targets', and users could then create targets that weren't actual targets for a specific processor. That sounds weird, but is perhaps best explained with examples:
a "C header file" target, which would essentially be a really overpowered rusty-cheddar
The key differentiating factor between this system and lints/syntax extensions/build scripts would be that it would have access to ALL type information and the implementation/MIR of ALL crates (currently only generic functions/structs from foreign crates are put into metadata and made available to lints/trans).
I think you're right that this is an upstream bug, but I'll still keep it in the back of my mind since I could be wrong.
As for the long term plan, I like the idea but I'm not sure it provides enough of an advantage for the amount of effort it would take (since I think you would end up having to reimplement 50% of a C compiler backend) and I certainly won't have the time to spear-head it for the next few months.
After looking through the issues in
syntex
(serde-deprecated/syntex#45), I am fairly sure it is their issue not yours, but I thought I would ask anyway.I have a macro like this:
The
#[repr(C)]
structs and extern functions aren't converted to the C header.I also understand you are rewriting the code into a more general framework. Will that change the way macros are/aren't expanded?
A long term plan / ambitious idea
In the far future I think it would be great if
rustc
allowed multiple compilation 'targets', and users could then create targets that weren't actual targets for a specific processor. That sounds weird, but is perhaps best explained with examples:The key differentiating factor between this system and lints/syntax extensions/build scripts would be that it would have access to ALL type information and the implementation/MIR of ALL crates (currently only generic functions/structs from foreign crates are put into metadata and made available to lints/trans).
If you think that is an interesting proposition taking to http://internals.rust-lang.org or whatever, then let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: