Skip to content

Add comment explaining why we don't handle all function parameter attributes in GCC #901

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
GuillaumeGomez merged 1 commit into from
Jun 30, 2026
+8 −0
Merged

Add comment explaining why we don't handle all function parameter attributes in GCC #901

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions src/abi.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -146,6 +146,14 @@ impl<'gcc, 'tcx> FnAbiGccExt<'gcc, 'tcx> for FnAbi<'tcx, Ty<'tcx>> {
if attrs.regular.contains(rustc_target::callconv::ArgAttribute::NonNull) {
non_null_args.push(arg_index as i32 + 1);
}
// There are a few others `ArgAttribute` variants"
//
// * ArgAttribute::ReadOnly: `access(read_only())`, but it's only used for emitting
// warning, not for optimization.
// * ArgAttribute::NoUndef: No equivalent in GCC
// * ArgAttribute::Writable: `access(read_write())` or `access(write_only())`, but it's
// only used for emitting warning, not for optimization.
// * ArgAttribute::NoFree: No equivalent in GCC
ty
};
#[cfg(not(feature = "master"))]
Expand Down
Loading