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

  Andrea

Reply via email to