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

[David Malcolm]

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 21:40 +0000, Andrea Corallo wrote:
> 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

I've committed it to trunk as r268563.

Dave