Re: Late-breaking jit features (was Re: [PATCH][gcc] libgccjit: introduce gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option)

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

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