Basic metadata generation #1820
Conversation
| self.0 |= 0x10; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn get_abstract(&self) -> bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit:
It would be more consistent to just call this abstract.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, abstract is a reserved keyword.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah that's a shame. You could use it by doing r#abstract, but that's probably not worth it.
| @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ fn gen_compare_traits(gen: &Gen, def: TypeDef, name: &TokenStream, cfg: &Cfg) -> | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| fn gen_debug(gen: &Gen, def: TypeDef, ident: &TokenStream, cfg: &Cfg) -> TokenStream { | |||
| if gen.sys || gen.reader.type_def_has_union(def) || gen.reader.type_def_has_packing(def) { | |||
| if gen.sys || gen.reader.type_def_has_explicit_layout(def) || gen.reader.type_def_has_packing(def) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the difference between gen.reader.type_def_has_explicit_layout(def) and gen.reader.type_def_flags(def).explicit_layout(). If they're equivalent, could we stick with using just one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The explicit_layout flag just checks the bit in the TypeDef record. The type_def_has_explicit_layout is a much more comprehensive inspection that checks not only the TypeDef itself, but also its fields recursively, and also any other TypeDefs of the same type but for different architectures. The latter depends on the former.
| loop { | ||
| value >>= 1; | ||
| if value == 0 { | ||
| break; | ||
| } | ||
| bits += 1; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| loop { | |
| value >>= 1; | |
| if value == 0 { | |
| break; | |
| } | |
| bits += 1; | |
| } | |
| while { value >>= 1; value != 0 } { | |
| bits += 1; | |
| } |
| pub fn strlen(cs: *const u8) -> usize; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn composite_index_size(tables: &[usize]) -> usize { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this function requires a deep understanding of the metadata file format, but I do think some small comments could make this much easier to understand.
| Self::ModuleRef(row) => ((row + 1) << 2) + 1, | ||
| Self::AssemblyRef(row) => ((row + 1) << 2) + 2, | ||
| Self::TypeRef(row) => ((row + 1) << 2) + 3, | ||
| _ => unimplemented!(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this unimplemented or merely unexpected? Using a panic! with some sort of explanatory message would probably be better.
| @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ | |||
| #[derive(Clone, Copy)] | |||
| pub enum ResolutionScope { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like it would benefit from a short doc about what it's used for.
I'm back working on #1093.
windows-sysfor the PE header structures.uniontoexplicit_layoutto be faithful to ECMA-335.