This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libgccjit.so: an embeddable JIT-compilation library based on GCC
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:56:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: libgccjit.so: an embeddable JIT-compilation library based on GCC
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1381354294 dot 15312 dot 29 dot camel at surprise>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM, David Malcolm <email@example.com> wrote:
> Some questions for the GCC steering committee:
> * is this JIT work a good thing? (I think so, obviously, but can I go
> ahead and e.g. add it to the wiki under "Current Projects"?)
> * do you like the general approach? I'm choosing to deliberately hide
> as much as possible of GCC's insides, trying to hit the use-case
> of being able to add a JIT to an existing interpreted language whilst
> avoiding scope-creep.
> * it seems worthwhile to have a place to discuss the JIT work: both in
> terms of development *of* the branch, and for developers wishing to
> *use* the library in their own projects. I strongly feel that the
> only good APIs are those that are developed alongside *users* of
> those APIs (this forces one to smooth off the rough edges from the
> Hence is it reasonable to have a "firstname.lastname@example.org" mailing list for
> * what would need to happen to get this into 4.9? or is this an
> unrealistic goal?
> * should I be posting my patches to "dmalcolm/jit" to the gcc-patches
> mailing list as I commit them? Also, should this be just a "jit"
> branch? (i.e. not under "dmalcolm/")
The JIT work definitely is a good thing. I would recommend a general
"jit" branch and posting patches to gcc-patches.
I think it would be great to include this in GCC 4.9, but these mostly
are technical questions for Global Reviewers and Release Managers.
Thanks for the great work!