Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

[John Hubbard]

On 12/1/25 8:43 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 5:36 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
>> Is there proc macro magic we can come up with? Or rustc or clippy
>> changes? So that this is becomes a better foundation upon which to
>> build?
> 
> Converting more code to macros has their own set of tradeoffs, but it
> depends on what you mean. Do you have something in mind?

Mainly just: is there a way to automatically "derive" (generate) an
always-inline directive for any function that attempts to call
build_assert!() on any of its arguments? And in fact, *force* the
always-inline, if it is not forced hard enough today.

Something along those lines.

> 
> And yes, I have had it in our usual lists for a long time and we
> mentioned it to upstream Rust and so on. We are well aware that
> `build_assert!` isn't ideal, and in many cases it is best to avoid it
> when there is a better approach.
> 
> Now, if a company has the means to improve the situation, e.g. by
> sponsoring someone upstream to work on features like this, then by all
> means, please go ahead! That would be very welcome, and we have some
> contacts that could be interested in working on things like that, so
> please feel free to ping.
> 

I will bring this up (along with the KSYM_NAME_LEN hashed symbol project)
to our internal Rust groups. Both of these seem like nice, self-contained
projects that someone could really get into.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard