Le vendredi 11 juin 2021 à 14:00 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit : > On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 08:15 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote: > > Thank you for your answer. > > I attached the updated patch. > > BTW you (or possibly me) dropped the mailing lists; was that > deliberate?
Oh, my bad. > > > > See my answers below. > > > > Le jeudi 10 juin 2021 à 18:41 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit : > > > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 21:51 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote: > > > > I chose option A, so everything is a size_t, now. > > > > I also renamed the dyncast functions. > > > > Here's the new patch. > > > > > > Thanks, sorry again about the delays in reviewing your work. > > > > > > You didn't specify how you tested the patch; are you running the > > > full > > > jit regression test suite? > > > > Yes, I run the full jit test suite. > > Great. > > [...snip...] > > > > > > > I can't remember, sorry, do you have push rights to the gcc git > > > repository? > > > > I don't have push rights; it's actually my first contribution to > > gcc. > > Congratulations! I'm excited about having Rust support for GCC (two > different ways, in fact!) Yup. Exciting times! > > > I have signed the FSF copyright attribution. > > I can push changes on your behalf, but I'd prefer it if you did it, > especially given that you have various other patches you want to get > in. > > Instructions on how to get push rights to the git repo are here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html > > I can sponsor you. Thanks. I did sign up to get push rights. Have you accepted my request to get those? > > Note that your patches would still need review/approval ("Write After > Approval"). > > > > Do you have a preference as to which patch you want me to look at > > > next? > > > Otherwise I'll go through them in the order in > > > https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc/tree/master/gcc-patches > > > > You can indeed look in this directory in the order they were added. > > There was one patch before the reflection one (0001-This-patch- > > handles- > > truncation-and-extension-for-cast.patch), but since it's only a > > bugfix, > > it doesn't matter if it's merged after. > > That one looks good to me now too (I've replied on that patch). > > > > > This one is ready for review, but I believe the other one needs > > correction on my end since the last review you made. I'll make sure > > to > > fix them soon. > > Now I'm confused as to which patches you're referring to, sorry. > I'll > hold off for now on further reviews; let me know when you want me to > look at them, and which ones. > > Thanks > Dave >
