From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26547 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2015 14:57:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26525 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2015 14:57:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Message-ID: <1435762163.24803.14.camel@surprise> Subject: Re: Four jit backports to gcc 5 branch From: David Malcolm To: Basile Starynkevitch Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1435669264.13727.213.camel@surprise> References: <1435592671.13727.136.camel@surprise> <20150630064302.GA3804@ovh.starynkevitch.net> <1435669264.13727.213.camel@surprise> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 09:01 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 08:43 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:44:31AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > I've gone over the changes to the gcc/jit and gcc/testsuite/jit.dg > > > directories in trunk since gcc 5 and backported the following 4 changes > > > from trunk to the gcc-5-branch: > > > > > > > > > I'll be delighted if switch statements ability would be backported to > > GCC 5. (Its absence is IMHO a severe bug in GCCJIT, but perhaps GCC rules > > forbid backporting new features, even when they correct a huge > > deficiency and when the patch adding them is probably quite small). > > I don't agree with your characterization of the severity of this, but I > do think we ought to fix it if possible. > > I don't know of any rules about what is and what isn't suitable for > backporting. The jit work as a whole is relatively new and has been > messaged as "experimental". > > I'm the jit maintainer, and I believe the patch is reasonable to > backport: it doesn't break API or ABI (although it extends it), it has > docs and test coverage, and doesn't touch anything outside of the jit > (beyond adding the new header gcc/typed-splay-tree.h, which is only used > by the jit). > > Hence I intend to backport it to gcc-5-branch, but I've got to get it > into trunk first :) (hopefully later today) Switch statements for the jit are now in gcc-5-branch, as of r225255.