Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] Implement extension chaining #183

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Mar 10, 2019
Merged

[WIP] Implement extension chaining #183

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
681eec5
Update to 1.1.97
MaikKlein Feb 13, 2019
6d72bb5
Implement extension chaining
MaikKlein Feb 3, 2019
c46a41e
Replace `ExtensionChain` with a simple iterator
MaikKlein Feb 23, 2019
4f7ca18
Implement `push_next`
MaikKlein Feb 26, 2019
3de2ca9
Implement `ExtendsXXX` for all builders as well
MaikKlein Feb 27, 2019
c66ae6b
Add lifetime to push_next
MaikKlein Feb 27, 2019
1e13b99
Add some documentation to `push_next`
MaikKlein Feb 27, 2019
d6a6aa3
Update experimental AMD extension
MaikKlein Feb 28, 2019
38fe16f
Use repr transparent for builders
MaikKlein Mar 3, 2019
215511f
Implement ExtendXXX for multiple root create infos
MaikKlein Mar 3, 2019
04dbf20
Transform the ptr chain sample into a test case
MaikKlein Mar 4, 2019
2ecc483
Reformat experimental amd
MaikKlein Mar 4, 2019
4c1c8aa
Remove mut
MaikKlein Mar 4, 2019
88b1ac0
Rename root_extends
MaikKlein Mar 4, 2019
d667e58
Add example
MaikKlein Mar 9, 2019
bf29ebb
Replace root create info with root_struct
MaikKlein Mar 9, 2019
c8c8f69
`next` can contain a pointer chain and we need to correct insert it.
MaikKlein Mar 9, 2019
1744159
Move ptr chain tests out of the generator
MaikKlein Mar 9, 2019
2d730cd
Add ptrchain external test file
MaikKlein Mar 9, 2019
7d5d200
Move external tests to lib.rs
MaikKlein Mar 10, 2019
cbc96b2
Update experimental builders
MaikKlein Mar 10, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions examples/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -410,8 +410,7 @@ impl ExampleBase {
.variable_pointers(true)
.build();
let mut corner = vk::PhysicalDeviceCornerSampledImageFeaturesNV::builder()
.corner_sampled_image(true)
.build();
.corner_sampled_image(true);
let mut device_create_info = vk::DeviceCreateInfo::builder()
.push_next(&mut corner)
.push_next(&mut variable_pointers)
Expand Down
20 changes: 15 additions & 5 deletions generator/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1591,14 +1591,13 @@ pub fn derive_setters(
name_to_tokens(&format!("Extends{}", name_to_tokens(&extends)))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't we be implementing the extension trait of every struct that this struct extends, rather than just an arbitrary one?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you mean by arbitrary one? Only root create infos will create a new trait, and only non root create infos that extend a root create info will implement this trait.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be used for deciding when to implement the trait, not when to define it. A single extension struct (e.g. VkPhysicalDeviceVariablePointerFeatures) can extend multiple root structs, and must implement all of their extension traits.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yes that is what I wanted to implement. I just chose the first one.

});


// We only implement a next methods for root create infos
let next_function = if has_next && next_extends.is_none() {
quote! {
/// Prepend
pub fn push_next<T: #extends_name>(mut self, next: &'a mut T) -> #name_builder<'a> {
pub fn push_next<T: #extends_name>(mut self, next: &mut T) -> #name_builder<'a> {
unsafe{
let next_ptr: *mut BaseOutStructure = ::std::mem::transmute(next);
let next_ptr = next.as_ptr_mut();
(*next_ptr).p_next = self.inner.p_next as _;
self.inner.p_next = next_ptr as _;
}
Expand All @@ -1613,7 +1612,9 @@ pub fn derive_setters(
// implement
let next_trait = if has_next && _struct.extends.is_none() {
quote! {
pub unsafe trait #extends_name {}
pub unsafe trait #extends_name {
unsafe fn as_ptr_mut(&mut self) -> *mut BaseOutStructure;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of generating more code here, we should mark all builders as #[repr(transparent)] and coerce the pointers directly in push_next. This is legal because the builders contain only one non-zero-sized member.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is a great idea, I completely forgot about #[repr(transparent)].

}
}
} else {
quote! {}
Expand All @@ -1622,7 +1623,16 @@ pub fn derive_setters(
// If the struct extends something we need to implement the root create info trait.
let impl_extend_trait = if let Some(next_extends) = next_extends {
quote! {
unsafe impl #next_extends for #name {}
unsafe impl #next_extends for #name_builder<'_> {
unsafe fn as_ptr_mut(&mut self) -> *mut BaseOutStructure{
::std::mem::transmute(&mut self.inner)
}
}
unsafe impl #next_extends for #name {
unsafe fn as_ptr_mut(&mut self) -> *mut BaseOutStructure{
::std::mem::transmute(self)
}
}
}
} else {
quote! {}
Expand Down