Added it.

Le jeu. 7 déc. 2023 à 18:13, Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com> a écrit :
>
> 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 <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.
> > > > >
> > >
>