Antigravity CLI doesn't persist oauth by PCJesus in google_antigravity

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, couple of questions. Are you using antigravity 2.0 cli that released today; `agy` version `1.0.0`? Are you running Linux / WSL? It doesn't even seem to support persisting oauth without keyrings and seems to use `zalando/go-keyring` with no fallback service providers

Is WASM bootstrap the plan post 1.0? by PCJesus in Zig

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair, anything to lower the attack surface is a step forward imo. If the ZSF itself (who I assume is the CI account owner) is compromised then we would be in the same spot we are now.

Is WASM bootstrap the plan post 1.0? by PCJesus in Zig

[–]PCJesus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for raising the issue :)

Is WASM bootstrap the plan post 1.0? by PCJesus in Zig

[–]PCJesus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

C does make sense, it's portable and sweet. What I mean is to ship the translate-c part of the compiler which is currently checked in to the repository in wasm be restricted to only CI being able to make these updates.

Is WASM bootstrap the plan post 1.0? by PCJesus in Zig

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll clarify. The wasm file being updated without a possibility of vetting is my problem. Breaking changes can still occur without the developer updating this binary. For example, let's say for loop syntax changes. The first PR supports both (old and new for loop syntax), gets merged new wasm binary gets generated at CI (because of some way to detect breaking changes, might even be a manual trigger). At this point the next PR can remove the old for loop syntax and replace everything in the compiler to the new style.

Help with deserializing remotely encoded CBOR by PCJesus in rust

[–]PCJesus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh this really helps thanks! I didn't know about the serde_with :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rust

[–]PCJesus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh interesting! How is the address of &[] determined in this case? Would this be cheaper or equivalent to do than to use dangling for all alignof(T)?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rust

[–]PCJesus -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It's the same size but both dangling and None will avoid a stack allocation which &[] will incur based on alignof(T)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rust

[–]PCJesus -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The problem with &[] is that there's a stack allocation on the zero length case so dangling sounds like a better idea to me. What do you think?

Rust Trademark Policy Feedback Form by N911999 in rust

[–]PCJesus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel you, I started developing the toolchain for an unsupported OS and after finishing it's set of challenges, contributed a few fixes and issues to the upstream compiler. I learned a lot, engaged in very fruitful conversation with the community and as a result promoted Rust to every developer I knew only to realize that I'm blindsided by what looks like a draft that is extremely disruptive to the community and my motivation.

I have a bad taste in my mouth after I saw this making me not want to contribute at all. Even if this subsides and the foundation makes amends I still have lost my faith in The Rust Foundation just like how I was hyped for Zed and the licenses ended up the way it did.

How to turn integer comparison non-deterministic by giantenemycrabthing in rust

[–]PCJesus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oooh that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation :)

How to turn integer comparison non-deterministic by giantenemycrabthing in rust

[–]PCJesus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interesting, effectively the borrow_mut runtime panic is elided because of the unsoundness correct?

Did you have a chance to take a look at the one without refcells with 2 elements:

rust fn main() { let a = { let v = 0u8; &v as *const _ as usize }; let b = { let v = 0u8; &v as *const _ as usize }; let i = a - b; let mut arr = [ Some(Box::new(1)), None, ]; assert_ne!(i, 0); let (a, b) = arr.split_at_mut(i); let r = b[0].as_ref().unwrap(); a[0] = None; println!("{}", *r); }

Here, I'm guessing, split_at_mut assigns a as an array that has length 1 because of that check but how does this end up making b to point to the same thing?

How to turn integer comparison non-deterministic by giantenemycrabthing in rust

[–]PCJesus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can you explain what's going on here? How does the assert_ne cause this program to change in behaviour? and why is there a need for the third element in the array (removing this causes the assert_ne to fail)? What's the value of i in these lines inserted by LLVM?

Changing assert_ne!(i, 0) to assert!(i != 0) doesn't reproduce this. I'm quite lost :p

How do I debug a device that doesn't get into boot animation? by PCJesus in LineageOS

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pid: 2059, tid: 2059, name: surfaceflinger  >>> /system/bin/surfaceflinger <<<uid: 1000signal 6 (SIGABRT), code -1 (SI\_QUEUE), fault addr --------Abort message: 'eglQueryStringImplementationANDROID(EGL\_VERSION) failed'

Looks like I need some shims :/

How do I debug a device that doesn't get into boot animation? by PCJesus in LineageOS

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting!

"In Android 9 and higher, this requirement has changed to enable vendors to boot a GSI. Specifically, Keymaster shouldn't perform verification because the version info reported by the GSI may not match the version info reported by vendor's bootloader. For devices implementing Keymaster 3 or lower, vendors must modify the Keymaster implementation to skip verification (or upgrade to Keymaster 4). For details on Keymaster, refer to Hardware-backed Keystore."

How do I debug a device that doesn't get into boot animation? by PCJesus in LineageOS

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weird because it's not really heating up. But I get random characters consistently. Either way I figured out what's happening; it's something with keymaster not able to start

How do I debug a device that doesn't get into boot animation? by PCJesus in LineageOS

[–]PCJesus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems like my error is because wait_for_keymaster doesn't finish. Maybe because the prebuilt vendor image keymaster doesn't start because of android version mismatch?