Migrate Bytes to u128 internally #515
Closed
Conversation
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
|
Must defer consideration until November... |
|
Moving to December along w/ companion PR. |
|
I've added some significant macro clean up to what I originally did. |
jbaublitz
force-pushed
the
u128-bytes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5d7da97
to
881bac5
Compare
|
Rebased. |
|
CI is repeatedly failing due to #557 |
jbaublitz
force-pushed
the
u128-bytes
branch
from
aca885e
to
0900f2c
Compare
|
This should also be ready due to rust-lang/rfcs#1504. |
mulkieran
requested changes
Jan 4, 2021
|
Looks good. Moving to pending while I do review of stratisd part: stratis-storage/stratisd#2341. |
mulkieran
requested changes
Jan 8, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add support in macros for u128 internal representation in unit structs. Move
Bytesover to u128.There is a fair amount of added code and duplication in the macros as you cannot capture a type as a variable and then pattern match on it in a submacro so the types must be literals throughout the path travelled by the macro call stack. I would keep them all as variables if I didn't need to differentiate between
.serialize_u64()and.serialize_u128()in theserde_macro!()body.