Hi and thanks for the review.
I thought it would be a bit weird to have an option to change which 
characters are allowed, but I can't think of a better solution.
Here's the updated patch that now allow arbitrary characters.

Le 2024-02-20 à 16 h 05, Iain Sandoe a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 20:50, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 17:08 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>> This patch adds a new option to allow special characters like . and $
>>> in function names.
>>> This is useful to allow for mangling using those characters.
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/contexts.rst b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/contexts.rst
>>> index 10a0e50f9f6..4af75ea7418 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/contexts.rst
>>> +++ b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/contexts.rst
>>> @@ -453,6 +453,10 @@ Boolean options
>>>       If true, the :type:`gcc_jit_context` will not clean up intermediate files
>>>       written to the filesystem, and will display their location on stderr.
>>>
>>> +  .. macro:: GCC_JIT_BOOL_OPTION_SPECIAL_CHARS_IN_FUNC_NAMES
>>> +
>>> +     If true, allow special characters like . and $ in function names.
>>
>> The documentation and the comment in libgccjit.h say:
>>   "allow special characters like . and $ in function names."
>> and on reading the implementation, the special characters are exactly
>> '.' and '$'.
>>
>> The API seems rather arbitrary and inflexible to me; why the choice of
>> those characters?  Presumably those are the ones that Rust's mangling
>> scheme uses, but do other mangling schemes require other chars?
>>
>> How about an API for setting the valid chars, something like:
>>
>> extern void
>> gcc_jit_context_set_valid_symbol_chars (gcc_jit_context *ctxt,
>>                                         const char *chars);
>>
>> to specify the chars that are valid in addition to underscore and
>> alphanumeric.
>>
>> In your case you'd call:
>>
>>   gcc_jit_context_set_valid_symbol_chars (ctxt, ".$");
>>
>> Or is that overkill?
> 
> If we ever wanted to support objective-c (NeXT runtime) then we’d need to
> be able to support +,-,[,] space and : at least.  The interesting thing there is
> that most assemblers do not support that either (and the symbols then need
> to be quoted into the assembler) .
> 
> So, it’s not (IMO) overkill considering at least one potential extension.
> 
> Iain
> 
>>
>> Dave
>>
>