From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD4C3889E3F for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:07:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5FD4C3889E3F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1668506856; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F7yQmqtpaSxnEhxrQFrOVsAQ3NyWDwo31KwZ8NrPCBQ=; b=E3SLbZ4XX1a4ch6CiNLxPODXEtkELAmovtwArL9cHS3z+4u9ZkEVNu/P3jvPWxIF316PU4 CYzF6jqa3Bcm5Pws1Y4+7sCFczoPrDAOmnDCfG6qJojZWDM3rqKHeKXqSPOBh8LXm1aTcG xNs0jgDAE6NOxHajl8MbkBswYW/9O0s= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-389-Y7-YVkIaMJ6D1cu949nFrQ-1; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 05:07:32 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Y7-YVkIaMJ6D1cu949nFrQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7301C0758E; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.38]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B7FF477F55; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2AFA7QLD548285 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:07:27 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2AFA7OZG548284; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:07:24 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:07:24 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: Xi Ruoyao , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Lulu Cheng Subject: Re: GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-11-14), Stage 3 in effect now Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd > > like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors > > I've made in LoongArch libasan :(]. > > I'm sorry but I was really busy with the porting of the documentation to Sphinx. > > Anyway, yes, we should make one one libsanitizer merge, but RM should likely > approve it: Richi, Jakub, do you support it? Could you please prepare a patch, so that we can see how much actually changed and decide based on that whether to go for a merge or cherry-picking one or more commits? I think last merge was done by you at the end of August, so we have 2.5 months of changes to potentially merge. Jakub