Conversation
|
Is the plan for dcsctp to be an alternative to https://github.com/sctplab/usrsctp or https://github.com/webrtc-rs/sctp-proto |
boivie
force-pushed
the
feature-cxx
branch
5 times, most recently
from
c1a35c5 to
4a36400
Compare
dcsctp-cxx/.gitignore
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| /examples/main | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you move this to the top level .gitignore instead? Makes it easier to maintain.
dcsctp-cxx/src/lib.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| fn delete_socket(socket: *mut DcSctpSocket) { | ||
| if !socket.is_null() { | ||
| unsafe { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a // SAFETY: ... comment explaining why this is safe
dcsctp-cxx/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| if !socket.is_null() { | ||
| unsafe { | ||
| // Re-take ownership of the Box and drop it. | ||
| let _ = Box::from_raw(socket); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you do this instead?
drop(Box::from_raw(socket));
dcsctp-cxx/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| unsafe fn state(socket: *const DcSctpSocket) -> ffi::SocketState { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you take a &DcSctpSocket instead of *const DcSctpSocket?
dcsctp-cxx/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this needed? It's pub so why would it complain about being unused? Does this have to be pub by the way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's see what CI says now.
This adds CXX FFI for the dcSCTP rust library to integrate it into a C++ application.
Yeah, this is not really the right place, but: This is a Rust version of https://webrtc.googlesource.com/src/+/refs/heads/main/net/dcsctp, and the goal is to make this library have feature and stability parity with that one. Compared to e.g. usrsctp, this library only aims to implement the parts of SCTP that are required to support data channels in WebRTC, And yes, RFC8260 is supported. |
| Box::into_raw(boxed_socket) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| unsafe fn delete_socket(socket: *mut DcSctpSocket) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you can move the unsafe block to only be around the drop call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can, but as a raw pointer is passed in, I'm promising a lot. If garbage is passed in, bad things happen, so callers have to be careful and only pass valid data.
A well known LLM strongly suggests I should mark it as unsafe.
dcsctp-cxx/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| use dcsctp::api::SocketState as DcSctpSocketState; | ||
| use std::time::Instant; | ||
|
|
||
| #[cxx::bridge] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you want to add a namespace or not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That commit got lost, done.
To avoid polluting the default namespace.
3 participants
It currently has a single function, to query the library's version, to validate that the C++ FFI is working correctly.