From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A86093858D39 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 19:22:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A86093858D39 Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-228-Bt8h7k-sN5e0Mwwnppefzg-1; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:22:10 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Bt8h7k-sN5e0Mwwnppefzg-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id a10-20020a05620a066a00b0046742e40049so15492084qkh.14 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:22:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kPAlcsS70zKCQD1k+fN6kqylMEUCgkIL1PKDnRpUwpo=; b=PpNNQp2inZGpuNzM8rtB/1BX+miRVjuWek8xjAsgqPn9eGEF8vkdhthh776LPb3mHg PsWbGxv8ykiAap4aeoG6ViOnB14UoS1GWylnZGLcrhXlAVwBIrUiWEPL10TjK4ldsv1z O1/sf6PnvBBoI+7kcOL1+BFM9kW1qY9NxQb+TwBUWbNvq/XS2PMxBd/XpJAxerZt0YXW 5efkw/0cSCN4DSMPM9ElQ7PKXPJoHN1RBlyXljAdPYynIWaTACwaMZDcAG/qDa78C2K7 BijEzgUVOjdqfOTXQ5X/2e+tQR/ovAZxDNLo+3uyEfXknPSjmHFCZ+lj05QZyglMWkSV 3n8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hYTrYxX4whZl/oIEYSv+2Uzr41p+556fPWGWnBPtJSw0gXACK WeJFq3txlyjyFaoIcfLD7KDX7upF5SetwO4LrHu69L002S2me5uMODPk0oS5Dz5yF/Baqd+d5gD /5SwVSDU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f2d:: with SMTP id iw13mr293791qvb.13.1639423330048; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:22:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy88SvSQ3kYlszmKuqtz78ZghPTUP0DkRq8VRWY4n7eneuoLxsriTV2PZ6EcAtI6tZF9fRcFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f2d:: with SMTP id iw13mr293675qvb.13.1639423328899; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from t14s.localdomain (c-73-69-212-193.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.69.212.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r20sm6577202qkp.21.2021.12.13.11.22.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:22:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: SV: [PATCH v2] jit: Add support for global rvalue initialization and ctors From: David Malcolm To: Antoni Boucher , Petter Tomner , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "jit@gcc.gnu.org" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:22:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <9e378de2a5b6e3dc7cc6268cb5a46121cae0516b.camel@zoho.com> References: <47b54ae597a44706aba180a05f1e5fe7@kth.se> , <9e378de2a5b6e3dc7cc6268cb5a46121cae0516b.camel@zoho.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: jit@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Jit mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 19:22:13 -0000 On Sun, 2021-12-12 at 20:39 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote: > Yes, this patch works for rustc_codegen_gcc perfectly. > It even fixes one issue that was in my patch, so that's nice! Excellent - thanks Antoni. > > Le samedi 11 décembre 2021 à 15:35 +0000, Petter Tomner a écrit : > > Hi! > > > > > s/an union/a union/ > > > s/a rvalue/an rvalue/ > > > > Heh no way ... and I though I knew English grammar :) I apologize for the non-regularity of English :) [and it's somewhat unfair for me to nit-pick, given that it's my first language - sorry; we may as well get this stuff correct] > > > > Had to look that up to see what the deal was but it makes sense. > > > > yunion, arevalue. Exactly. English spelling is a mess. > > > > > s/wrong-field-name/wrong-field-obj/ > > > > > > to match the struct example (given that the issue being tested > > > for > > > is > > > that it's the wrong object, rather than the wrong name). > > > > Initially, before submitting to the list, I made the code such that > > the field > > objects did not have to be the ones that were used when creating > > the > > struct or union, and forgot changing the test names. > > > > I figured it required too much string compares for the field names > > and > > pointer compares for the field object were more appropriate. To > > create > > dummy field objects were also kinda heavy. > > > > I'll address the points. Petter, you can go ahead and commit this, once you address the various points from my earlier review, and from Antoni's observation that "flags" should be "m_flags" when it's a member. Antoni has committed at least one ABI version bump since you posted this, so you'll need to rebase your work on top of his and adjust accordingly. Please re-test the patch before pushing it. Thanks for all your great work on this. Dave