2 ms·
Existing code would be using normal pointers, not fat pointers, so there would be no ABI break. New code using fat pointers would know that they fit into a pair
by cesarb 7y ago
Existing code would be using normal pointers, not fat pointers, so there would be no ABI break. New code using fat pointers would know that they fit into a pair of uintptr_t, so the size of uintptr_t would not need to change either.
- loeg 7y agoI don't think we want a uintptr_t and uintptr2_t.
- monocasa 7y agoIDK, it's not like it'd be an auto_ptr situation where you just don't use uintptr_t anymore and call the other one uintptr2_t. THere's different enough semantics that they both still make sesne. Like, as someone who does real, real dirty stuff in Rust, usize as a uintptr equivalent gets used still even though fat pointers are about as well supported as you can imagine.