Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff
Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff
Reported possibility of a safe implementation upstream: https://github.com/droundy/arrayref/issues/18
Running [miri](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri) should be a good way to validate the crate since most of what it's doing is not input-dependent.
Perhaps the "new-typed `const`" idea is worth pursuing then. @danielhenrymantilla could you open a PR to convert the type erasure to safe code? I admit this is a bit over...
The comments look very nice and clear to me. Thanks for doing this! I think one more unsafe block could be trivially rewritten as safe code, I've left a comment...
Those structs seem to be private, so I think that wouldn't be a breaking change.
Nah, it's probably me who misinterpreted the rules. Those structs indeed seem to be public, so changing the return type would indeed be a breaking change. Apologies for the confusion.
PRs are easier per project. Tracking issues... dunno, per repo probably, because that's what I'd grep for `unsafe`
Wow, you've even found a double free! Great job!
The bugs you've found are now showcased in the safety-dance trophy case in README. Thanks again!
Are you referring to the runtime library, or the code it generates? https://crates.io/crates/capnp seems to have ~200 daily downloads. A protobuf implementation such https://crates.io/crates/protobuf or https://crates.io/crates/prost would be a higher-value...