Mara Bos
Mara Bos
An alternative is to add an `assert!()` in the existing `from_size_align_unchecked` function (and perhaps deprecate it), and add a new `unchecked` function with the additional requirement. That way, the original...
We've discussed this in a few different libs-api meetings. After considering the alternatives, we felt that keeping #95295 is still the best path forward, even though it is technically a...
@rfcbot merge
@bors r+
Question from the libs-api meeting: How often would one use `is_aligned_to` given that `is_aligned` exists? (Or maybe a `is_aligned_for::()` might suffice for most cases?) How often does one want to...
> The trouble with that intrinsic is that `unordered` is weaker than `monotonic` aka `Relaxed`, and it can't easily be upgraded. There's no "relaxed fence" if the ordering you want...
@Kixiron That wouldn't suffice, as Ralf explains here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3301#discussion_r950713536
Most of the discussion so far is about the general concept and implementability of an "atomic per byte memcpy", but I'd also like some feedback on the API design itself....
It's not obvious to me at all from the name that this *modifies* the `Option`. It sounds like it'd be the same as `unwrap_or_default`. Something like `get_or_insert_default` would be more...