Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
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
Interrupts on RISC-V #847
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Interrupts on RISC-V #847
Changes from all commits
3241169
3dfa983
03e56ec
9e18c29
8041088
bc8aff8
4fd6e7d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This
&mut *core::ptr::addr_of_mut!( ... )
IMHO doesn't make sense.The whole raison d'être of
addr_of_mut!
is avoiding the&mut
, because having a&mut
(even for a short time, and not derefencing it) can potentially cause UB if you are not careful.But here, you convert it to a
&mut
anyway. So I don't see any advantage of this difficult to read incantation, you can as well just dounsafe { &mut LED_AND_BUTTON };
instead.Now, that causes a warning. And this warning looks like it led you to writing the code above:
I think the warning is valid, but the
help
is misleading. It even says "to create a raw pointer", and as written it would return a pointer, not a&mut
, so the resulting code wouldn't build.TL;DR: