It seems like you forgot to prefix the commit message with "libgccjit: ".
On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 10:55 +0100, Guillaume Gomez wrote: > Ping David. :) > > Le jeu. 23 nov. 2023 à 22:59, Antoni Boucher <boua...@zoho.com> a > écrit : > > David: I found back the comment you made. Here it is: > > > > I see you have patches to add function and variable attributes; > > I > > wonder if this would be cleaner internally if there was a > > recording::attribute class, rather than the std::pair currently > > in > > use > > (some attributes have int arguments rather than string, others > > have > > multiple args). > > > > I also wondered if a "gcc_jit_attribute" type could be exposed > > to > > the > > user, e.g.: > > > > attr1 = gcc_jit_context_new_attribute (ctxt, "noreturn"); > > attr2 = gcc_jit_context_new_attribute_with_string (ctxt, > > "alias", > > "__foo"); > > gcc_jit_function_add_attribute (ctxt, attr1); > > gcc_jit_function_add_attribute (ctxt, attr2); > > > > or somesuch? But I think the API you currently have is OK. > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-23 at 22:52 +0100, Guillaume Gomez wrote: > > > Ping David. :) > > > > > > Le mer. 15 nov. 2023 à 17:56, Antoni Boucher <boua...@zoho.com> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > David: another thing I remember you mentioned when you reviewed > > > > an > > > > earlier version of this patch is the usage of `std::pair`. > > > > I can't find where you said that, but I remember you mentioned > > > > that > > > > we > > > > should use a struct instead. > > > > Can you please elaborate again? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 17:53 +0100, Guillaume Gomez wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds the (incomplete) support for function and > > > > > variable > > > > > attributes. The added attributes are the ones we're using in > > > > > rustc_codegen_gcc but all the groundwork is done to add more > > > > > (and > > > > > we > > > > > will very likely add more as we didn't add all the ones we > > > > > use in > > > > > rustc_codegen_gcc yet). > > > > > > > > > > The only big question with this patch is about `inline`. We > > > > > currently > > > > > handle it as an attribute because it is more convenient for > > > > > us > > > > > but is > > > > > it ok or should we create a separate function to mark a > > > > > function > > > > > as > > > > > inlined? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for the review. > > > > > >
