From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BC263898C45; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:03:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3BC263898C45 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rguenther@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D29AFE4; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:03:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:03:40 +0100 (CET) From: Richard Biener To: David Malcolm cc: Andrea Corallo , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "jit@gcc.gnu.org" , nd , jakub@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V3][gcc] libgccjit: introduce version entry points In-Reply-To: <330ed10fb3e66abdbc5d30fdf2ba2fd3c3b30cf6.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <330ed10fb3e66abdbc5d30fdf2ba2fd3c3b30cf6.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-34.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, GIT_PATCH_1, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: jit@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Jit mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:03:43 -0000 On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 23:51 +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Updated version of the patch mainly addressing comments on the > > concurrency issues. > > > > I came to the conclusions that the caching should be done in the > > function that we decide to be thread safe. However I haven't touched > > parse_basever in any direction in the hope of having this still in > > stage4. As result I've mostly applied the mutex solution. > > > > 'make check-jit' runs clean > > > > Bests > > > > Andrea > > > > gcc/jit/ChangeLog > > 2020-??-?? Andrea Corallo > > David Malcolm > > > > * docs/topics/compatibility.rst (LIBGCCJIT_ABI_13): New ABI tag > > plus add version paragraph. > > * libgccjit++.h (namespace gccjit::version): Add new namespace. > > * libgccjit.c (gcc_jit_version_major, gcc_jit_version_minor) > > (gcc_jit_version_patchlevel): New functions. > > * libgccjit.h (LIBGCCJIT_HAVE_gcc_jit_version): New macro. > > (gcc_jit_version_major, gcc_jit_version_minor) > > (gcc_jit_version_patchlevel): New functions. > > * libgccjit.map (LIBGCCJIT_ABI_13) New ABI tag. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > 2020-??-?? Andrea Corallo > > > > * jit.dg/test-version.c: New testcase. > > * jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h: Add test-version.c. > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h > > index 0272e6f846f..cba4ac51cc9 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/jit.dg/all-non-failing-tests.h > > @@ -8,6 +8,13 @@ > > hooks provided by each test case. */ > > #define COMBINED_TEST > > > > +/* test-version.c */ > > +#define create_code create_code_version > > +#define verify_code verify_code_version > > +#include "test-version.c" > > +#undef create_code > > +#undef verify_code > > + > > /* test-accessing-bitfield.c */ > > #define create_code create_code_accessing_bitfield > > #define verify_code verify_code_accessing_bitfield > > Please add the new test to the header in its alphabetical location, > i.e. between: > > /* test-vector-types.cc: We don't use this, since it's C++. */ > > and > > /* test-volatile.c */ > > An entry also needs to be added to the "testcases" array at the end of > the header (again, in the alphabetical-sorted location). > > OK by me with that change (assuming you re-test the patch), but given > we're in stage 4, it's probably worth double-checking with a release > manager. I've CCed Jakub and Richi. I don't really care. Richard.