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
