From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 112742 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2019 15:51:29 -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 112556 invoked by uid 89); 2 Feb 2019 15:51:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=mid, april, April, quickly X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham 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 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:51:27 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FEA689AF1; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-106.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.106]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22ED7104812D; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 15:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x12FYUb1014794; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:34:30 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x12FYRLo014793; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:34:27 +0100 Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: David Malcolm Cc: Richard Biener , nd , Andrea Corallo , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "jit@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Late-breaking jit features (was Re: [PATCH][gcc] libgccjit: introduce gcc_jit_context_add_driver_option) Message-ID: <20190202153427.GD2135@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <1549055472.29992.9.camel@redhat.com> <1549120723.29992.14.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1549120723.29992.14.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:51:11 +0000 (UTC) X-SW-Source: 2019-q1/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 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