CohenArthur

@powerboat9 if you'd like to work on this, this is probably caused by a missing call to `parse_outer_attributes` in the macro transcribers. I'm thinking that the fix should not be...

I looked at the issue a bit and we end up in this branch when resolving the `bar()` path: https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/blob/25b40ba2e03c4ff030adb7ce8ce00e5315c46cb3/gcc/rust/resolve/rust-ast-resolve-path.cc#L166-L167 I'm not sure exactly what this does or why this...

I wish our cfg stripping pass simply returned a new AST without all the "to strip" nodes haha. it would be so much nicer to use, we wouldn't have to...

```c++ void CfgStrip::visit (AST::Module &module) { // strip test based on outer attrs expand_cfg_attrs (module.get_outer_attrs ()); if (fails_cfg_with_expand (module.get_outer_attrs ())) { module.mark_for_strip (); return; } // A loaded module might...

we can probably fix this bug as part of the name resolution rework

sorry, did not mean to force push here but I amended my commit by mistake :grimacing: the only change is me adding an index to the .texi file

> You may want to add `rust.install-html` target, so that the new urlification of terminal message can point to online doc generated from your new texinfo :) good point! I...

I'll add another PR with more documentation for using the compiler and add some example code from #2957

> Per a quick look, these changes look like (the first part of) how I think they should look like, thanks! In case there are requests for changes, I suggest...

@tschwinge I was thinking of pushing it as part of our next upstream? would you rather it was pushed beforehand?