I'm posting the patch again so that you can double-check that I wrote
the DCO for the co-author correctly.
Does that look good?
Thanks.

On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:57 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 10:33 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 10:25 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 10:01 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > Thanks, David.
> > > > Since we're not in phase 1 anymore, do we need an approval
> > > > before
> > > > I
> > > > merge like last year or can I merge immediately?
> > > 
> > > I think it counts as a bug fix and thus you can go ahead and
> > > merge
> > > (assuming you've done the usual testing).
> > > 
> > > > I also have many other patches (all in jit) that I need to
> > > > prepare
> > > > and
> > > > post to this mailing list.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > 
> > > Given that you're one of the main users of libgccjit I think
> > > there's
> > > a
> > > case for stretching the deadlines a bit here.
> > > 
> > > Do you have a repo I can look at?
> > 
> > Yes! The commits are in my fork:
> > https://github.com/antoyo/gcc
> > 
> > The only big one is the one adding support for target-dependent
> > builtins:
> > https://github.com/antoyo/gcc/commit/6d4313d4c02dd878f43917c978f299f5119330f0
> > 
> > Regarding this one, there's the issue that since we record the
> > builtins
> > on the first context run, we only have access to the builtins from
> > the
> > second run.
> > Do you have any idea how to fix this?
> > Or do you consider this is acceptable?
> 
> This is implemented behind the new
> gcc_jit_context_get_target_builtin_function entrypoint, right?
> 
> If so, perhaps that recording::context::get_target_builtin_function
> could detect if it's the first time it's been called on this context,
> and if so make a playback::context to do the detection?  That way it
> would be transparent to the user, and work first time.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> > 
> > I also have a WIP branch which adds support for try/catch:
> > https://github.com/antoyo/gcc/commit/6219339fcacb079431596a0bc6cf8d430a1bd5a1
> > I'm not sure if this one is going to be ready soon or not.
> 
> I see that the new entrypoints have e.g.:
> 
> /* Add a try/catch statement.
>    This is equivalent to this C++ code:
>      try {
>         try_block
>      }
>      catch {
>         catch_block
>      }
> */
> 
> void
> gcc_jit_block_add_try_catch (gcc_jit_block *block,
>                              gcc_jit_location *loc,
>                              gcc_jit_block *try_block,
>                              gcc_jit_block *catch_block);
> 
> but I'm not sure how this is meant to interact with the CFG-like
> model
> used by the rest of the gcc_jit_block_* API.  What happens at the end
> of the blocks?  Does the generated code use the C++ ABI for
> exception-
> handling?
> 
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Dave
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 09:28 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 14:03 -0500, Antoni Boucher via Jit
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > This fixes bug 107770.
> > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks, the patch looks good to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dave
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>