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
