Re: [PATCH] Add support for function attributes and variable attributes

[Guillaume Gomez <guillaume1.gomez@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2206 bytes --]

Ping David. :)

Le jeu. 23 nov. 2023 à 22:59, Antoni Boucher <bouanto@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 <bouanto@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.
> > >
>
>