Jamey Sharp

This is a good issue to ask that question in, yes! Consider these selected declarations (from `xf86drm.h` because I happen to have been reading it recently, not that the details...

I think I fixed the original bug by committing 3346deb4005e12bc27e40f63132b62953859e9e3 a few days ago, so I'm re-purposing this issue for the wishlist item that it'd be nice if struct and...

Yes, I want this. :smile: I've been wondering: can the intermediate form you mention just be Rust source code? It's hardly efficient to have to re-parse the text, but I...

This PR has unfortunately gone stale, but I'd like to not lose track of it. @afonso360, could you give it a rebase?

CI failures are because today's release of Rust 1.63 reports a new warning. #4691 is merged fixing that, so please rebase and then hopefully CI will pass.

I am so excited about all this work you did over the weekend! I need to dig into it all. But until then, I'll reply to https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/4824#issuecomment-1236408856 here: > >...

> So I did this last one, I recorded backtraces for `Unstructured::choose` where we fail due to a empty choice. [...] With 150k execs we got the following results: >...

Is it important to have a build-time flag for whether to generate this code? Or would it be okay to just always generate the `trace!` call? I assume this is...

> The reason for the flag was mostly that the tests aren't compiled in a context that has access to the `trace!` macro. Huh, I don't understand that answer. It's...

Ahhh, that's what I was missing (`cranelift/isle/isle/tests/run_tests.rs` in particular). I'm not sure I like relying on the enclosing crate having a `trace` macro at top-level. From offline discussion with you,...