Skip to content

Conversation

elbeno
Copy link
Contributor

@elbeno elbeno commented Jun 15, 2025

Problem:

  • The docs for field mention the storage in 32-bit words, but this isn't really applicable to a field; it's a message thing (and is mentioned later in that context).
  • Field locators may omit dword indices, but this is not documented.
  • A couple of important things about field size are not documented.

Solution:

  • Remove the reference to storage in the field section.
  • Add a note that the max field size is 64 bits.
  • Document the alternative located specialization.
  • Note the compilation error when storage size exceeds type representation.

Problem:
- The docs for `field` mention the storage in 32-bit words, but this isn't
  really applicable to a field; it's a message thing (and is mentioned later in
  that context).
- Field locators may omit dword indices, but this is not documented.
- A couple of important things about field size are not documented.

Solution:
- Remove the reference to storage in the field section.
- Add a note that the max field size is 64 bits.
- Document the alternative `located` specialization.
- Note the compilation error when storage size exceeds type representation.
@lukevalenty lukevalenty merged commit 661a934 into intel:main Jun 15, 2025
27 checks passed
@elbeno elbeno deleted the tweak-field-docs branch June 18, 2025 00:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants