A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phraseI have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

BTW, JIT CI is broken on macOS and Windows currently, so if those fail (build failure on Windows and 2 failing tests on macOS), it's not your fault.

Technically, this should probably also supportCFLAGS_NODIST? I'm not sure.

It's up to you. If you want to addCFLAGS_NODIST, just use the same--with-cflags option to pass them though (the build script doesn't care which is which).

So, this breaks on universal builds, since that setsCONFIGURE_CFLAGS=-arch arm64 -arch x86_64. See the AArch64 macOS failures in CI (it's different from the expected test failures).

I think part of the problem is that we don't want to use an option for the JITjust because it's being used for the interpreter itself. We want very tight control over the code we're generating, especially since the parse step is sort of fragile.

What flags are you needing to pass, exactly? Is it only include paths?

I onlyneed the include flag for my build to pass. But I only caught#134291 because all of my flags were passed through. It's possible there are other subtle differences. I'm totally fine with aCFLAGS_JIT, personally. I feel like people are opposed to new CFLAGS variants, but here it makes a lot of sense.