Folkert de Vries
Folkert de Vries
I've rebased and changed the implementation to match https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141774, which is both shorter and apparently faster too.
@traviscross are we waiting for T-lang for something here? Otherwise we could get a T-compiler review to move this forward right?
@bors r=@tgross35
We recommend that you use the rust implementation with the `libbz2-rs-sys` feature. It is more performant, and because of dead code elimination the impact on binary size should be minimal....
Looks like this issue is resolved (we can reopen if I'm missing something here)
Fun. I guess I'll open an LLVM error for that one and hope for the best?
this works apparently https://godbolt.org/z/jWvxGKjPG ```rust #[unsafe(no_mangle)] #[unsafe(naked)] //#[target_feature(enable = "dit")] unsafe extern "C" fn write() { core::arch::naked_asm!( ".arch armv8.4-a", "msr DIT, #0", "ret" ) } ``` Still that seems really...
I believe this is related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113221. Also arm's target features are just an absolute mess, and the above isn't really workable because there is no way to "pop" the...
I would have expected this PR to break CI given that zlib-rs does not currently expose the API to implement those features? I'll need to make a quick release exposing...
Some fun kind of undocumented behavior: the native zlib backends count the dictionary length towards `total_in`, but the `flate2` bookkeeping does not (it only counts input to `compress` and `decompress`)....