[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTxHKCWTAA7T-MJd@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:26:32 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, tmgross@...ch.edu,
miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/5] rust: core abstractions for network PHY
drivers
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 10:50:45PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Hmm... but does it mean even `set_speed()` has the similar issue?
> >
> > let phydev: *mut phy_device = self.0.get();
> > unsafe { (*phydev).speed = ...; }
>
> No that should be fine, take a look at the MIR output of the following
> code [1]:
>
> struct Foo {
> a: usize,
> b: usize,
> }
>
> fn foo(ptr: *mut Foo) {
> unsafe { (*ptr).b = 0; }
> }
>
> fn bar(ptr: *mut Foo) {
> unsafe { (&mut *ptr).b = 0; }
> }
>
> Aside from some alignment checking, foo's MIR looks like this:
>
> bb1: {
> ((*_1).1: usize) = const 0_usize;
> return;
> }
>
> And bar's MIR like this:
>
> bb1: {
> _2 = &mut (*_1);
> ((*_2).1: usize) = const 0_usize;
> return;
> }
>
> [1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=f7c4d87bf29a64af0acc09ff75d3716d
>
> So I think that is fine, but maybe Gary has something else to say about it.
>
Well when `-C opt-level=2`, they are the same:
https://godbolt.org/z/hxxo75YYh
Regards,
Boqun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists