Skip to content

Roadmap 2.0 #150

Open
Open

Description

@nia-e

See #48 for the previous (now-outdated) roadmap.

Core traits, types, and their interactions

  • Merge proposed StaticAllocator trait & changes to Allocator
  • Determine the soundness situation w.r.t. Clone interactions
  • Merge a NativeAllocator<A: StaticAllocator> lang item for LLVM intrinsic interop & noalias emitting
  • Explore other proposed extension traits
    • Proposals came up for PartialEq marking allocator equivalence - do we want something like this?
    • Deallocator?

Beyond GlobalAlloc

Expanded collection types

Allocator-aware pointer types

Stabilisation path

Meta

Activity

  1. pinned this issue on Aug 8, 2026
  2. added a commit that references this issue on Sep 23, 2026
  3. added a commit that references this issue on Sep 23, 2026
  4. added a commit that references this issue on Oct 1, 2026
  5. added a commit that references this issue on Oct 2, 2026
  6. Caritajoe18 commented on Oct 15, 2026

    @Caritajoe18

    Hello @nia-e
    I am an Outreachy applicant. I would like to start contributing by cleaning up old and now-irrelevant issues in this repo.

    Do I comment on them directly or tag them here?

  7. Anshumancanrock commented on Oct 15, 2026

    @Anshumancanrock

    Hi @nia-e , I would like to work on Proposal: unsafe trait AllocatorClone: Allocator + Clone . Should i start working ?

  8. paval-shlyk commented on Oct 16, 2026

    @paval-shlyk

    I guess the main issue isn't delivering a proposal, but criticizing it. Your opinion is important, while the development part is pretty trivial.

  9. Joiejoie1 commented on Oct 16, 2026

    @Joiejoie1

    Hi @nia-e ,
    While taking a look at boxed.rs and custom allocator support,
    I noticed an opportunity to add some extra test coverage for try_clone_from_ref_in using the System allocator under a few edge cases. Would it be helpful if I put together a small PR for that?

  10. kaddujames501-ship-it commented on Oct 25, 2026

    @kaddujames501-ship-it

    Hello team, I noticed what seems to me like an inconsistency between grow, grow_zeroed, and shrink. grow and shrink both state what happens on Ok and on Err grow_zeroed states neither, and only says it “behaves like grow”. @nia-e Is it intentional?. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions