Skip to content

Conversation

zachrammell
Copy link

This previously always had JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED defined despite the option existing to conditionally enable it, which can cause subtle failures with differing definitions between library and usage code.

This previously always had JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED defined despite the option existing to conditionally enable it, which can cause subtle failures with differing definitions between library and usage code.
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @zachrammell, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a potential source of subtle failures in the Jolt Physics library by ensuring that the JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED preprocessor definition is properly guarded. Previously, this define was always active, which could lead to inconsistencies and issues when the library was consumed by applications with differing profiling requirements. The changes introduce a dedicated configuration option to explicitly enable or disable the internal profiler, thereby aligning the build process with intended usage and preventing mismatched definitions between the library and its consumers.

Highlights

  • New Configuration Option: Introduced a new profile configuration option in xmake.lua for Jolt Physics, allowing explicit control over the internal profiler. This option defaults to false.
  • Conditional Profiler Enablement: The JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED preprocessor definition is now conditionally applied based on the new profile configuration option, rather than being unconditionally defined.
  • Removed Unconditional Define: The previous unconditional definition of JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED has been removed from the build script.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request correctly guards the JPH_PROFILE_ENABLED define behind a new profile configuration option, which was previously always enabled. This change improves configurability and prevents potential definition mismatches. The implementation is straightforward and correct. I have one minor suggestion regarding code formatting to ensure consistency.

@zachrammell zachrammell marked this pull request as draft October 7, 2025 03:49
@waruqi
Copy link
Member

waruqi commented Oct 8, 2025

Does it ready now?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants