llogiq
llogiq
I only see the need for an index → pointer conversion, not vice versa. Do we need both `to_ptr` and `to_mut_ptr`?
Gee, that's a gnarly macro.
That would be wildly unsafe and provide no benefit over `Option` (which is already using the implicit null for the None).
That is exactly the problem: Your pointers carry no information about their validity. But I guess we don't *add* any unsafety in the FFI case.
Sorry for letting you wait so long. My internet connection is a bit wonky these days (changing providers), so I'll have to look into it later.
Interestingly, screaming appears to be faster than hyperscreaming in this case @Veedrac
Agreed, this is something I would like to see. However it would require linking LLVM intrinsics not currently available in Rust, and I lack the time to maintain it.
Great! This issue is more about the design side of things and probably requires more understanding of the Rust HIR than of database work (with or without Diesel). You can...
The current code should do this. However, if the outer function already has an inline annotation, it will get two of them. I should add a check, which is why...
No, because we clone the original function definition's attributes to not interfere with e.g. docs. But if the original function was already inlined, we need to inline the inner function...