libgccjit questions

[Daurnimator]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 08:50, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> When I last looked at it (years ago) I got bogged down in the question
> of "which target are you compiling for?" with thoughts about being able
> to support multiple targets, with different backends as DSOs loaded by
> libgccjit.  But that approach would involve a massive refactoring

This sounds reasonable to me....

> Rethinking this, a less ambitious approach would be to simply support
> configuring libgccjit for a different target with the usual --target=
> param at configure time, and make it the client code's responsibility
> to load the correct libgccjit.so (and there could only be one linked
> into any given process).

At first glance, this seems like it could be on the route to the previous idea.
Conceivably you could have a sort of proxy-shared object that loads
the target-specific libgccjit.
I'm imagining that when you create a context you'd specify a target
architecture: if the target-specific-libgccjit isn't installed then
the context creation would fail.

> In theory that would work, but given the non-standard way that
> libgccjit integrates with the gcc driver code I'd anticipate issues
> with converting the assembler code to .o and executables (you'd need
> binutils configured for the relevant target also, and libgccjit would
> need to be able to find it).

So for inline assembly, does libgccjit call out to binutils' gas? Or
is it used somehow as a library?
Are other pieces of binutils actually needed?

> (I'm not personally very familiar with building cross toolchains; help
> with that would be appreciated if we pursue this idea)

We currently link against libllvm for this and we can target any
architecture we wish with the one binary/library. I'm hoping we can
one day use GCC in a similar way.

> > > How can I support inline assembly?
> >
> > I believe you cannot use inline assembly as we have no specific
> > support
> > for that and asm and __asm__ are not builtin functions so they can't
> > be
> > used with gcc_jit_context_get_builtin_function.
>
> I've written a mostly complete patch for inline assembly here:
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
> which I hope to get into the tree for GCC 11.

Looks great! Will be happy to give this a try once merged/released.

> > > Would it be reasonable to add an API that allows extracting
> > > sections
> > > without writing out to a file and reading it back in?
> >
> > The elf file is always produced because the assembler is invoked as a
> > child process, so as of today this cannot happen in memory.
> >
> > >
> > > Should distros be packaging libgccjit?
> > > I noticed that e.g. ArchLinux is not. Possibly because it is
> > > documented as "experimental"; possibly because it requires building
> > > gcc with --enable-host-shared ?
>
> Given that we've had > 5 years of ABI-compatible releases I removed the
> "alpha" warnings from https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/JIT back in May.
>
> I would like distros to package it.
>
> Some notes on packaging are at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/jit/internals/index.html#packaging-notes

What would the penalty be of always compiling with
--enable-host-shared ? The docs note "slight performance hit": but is
it actually significant?

> > > What is the license situation with libgccjit; is it GPL? LGPL? what
> > > does this mean for code that uses libgccjit?
> >
> > AFAIU libgccjit is part of GCC and this is released under the GNU
> > General Public License.

Is my understanding correct then that a zig compiler built with
libgccjit support would then become GPL? (and otherwise it would be
MIT licensed)