On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 21:40 +0000, Andrea Corallo wrote: > David Malcolm writes: > > > On Sat, 2019-02-02 at 16:34 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 10:18:43AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > > > Alternatively, should these patches go into a branch of > > > > > > queued > > > > > > jit > > > > > > changes for gcc 10? > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything like an ABI involved? If so we should avoid > > > > > breaking it all the time. Otherwise JIT is not release > > > > > critical > > > > > and > > > > > thus if you break it in the wrong moment it's your own fault. > > > > > > > > The two patches each add a new API entrypoint, but libgccjit > > > > uses > > > > symbol-versioning to extend the ABI, without bumping the > > > > SONAME: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/jit/topics/compatibility.html > > > > So it's not an ABI break as such. > > > > > > I'd say it depends on how quickly the copyright paperwork can be > > > done, the > > > patch can't be added until that is resolved. While gccjit is not > > > release > > > critical, it would be nice not to break it late, so say if it can > > > be > > > committed by end of February/mid March, I guess it is fine, given > > > the > > > assumption we'd like to release mid April to end of April, if it > > > can't be > > > done by then, might be better to postpone to GCC 10. > > > > > > Jakub > > > > Jakub and Richard: thanks. > > > > I've double-checked the gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option patch and > > it > > looks good (it's a different patch that we're waiting on paperwork > > for). > > > > Andrea: are you able to commit this, or should I do this on your > > behalf? > > > > Dave > > Hi David, > I have no repo write access so if you could push it that would be > great. > > Thanks a lot
I've committed it to trunk as r268563. Dave
