I don't think an auto-generated name (along the lines of u or u2) for the
anonymous structs would be helpful here. You can see that bindgen is
already generating a placeholder name ("__bindgen_anon_1"). A meaningful
name might be nice instead, but I get the impression that isn't an option
here since that would break the C API.Can I ask, would it make sense for us to hard code in R_LEGACY_RCOMPLEX so that Rust can just ignore the union? Because as I understand the only compiler that actually needs to "see" the union is gfortran, and if we pretend it's still a struct in Rust everything should work as before, no? Is this guaranteed to be a stable macro? On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 5:50 PM Ivan Krylov <krylov.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 09:31:33 +0200 > Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > it also matters how Rust can handle anonymous nested structures, or > > what is the right mapping of the involved C types to Rust > > It's worth mentioning that Rust's RFC 2102 [1] defines unnamed structs > and unions for the purpose of C interoperability, but it's not yet > implemented. > > Would it help Rust's bindgen (and, potentially, other C declaration > parsers) if R could optionally give a name to the anonymous union > member, like it's done in Windows API [2]? > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan > > [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804 > > [2] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170907-00/?p=96956 > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
