From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1193 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 13:33:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 1184 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 13:33:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from province.act-europe.fr (HELO province.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:33:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4680916534F; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:33:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (province.act-europe.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIZiX-1DuJsW; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:33:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (dyn-88-122-76-102.ppp.tiscali.fr [88.122.76.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA64165130; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:33:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: "Richard Guenther" Subject: Re: PR/32004, tree-ssa caused in/out asm constraints to often need reloads Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:36:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Paolo Bonzini" , "Andrew Pinski" , "Mark Mitchell" References: <468CC82F.2060702@lu.unisi.ch> <200707091455.31718.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000707090554h4eab439di66e1d1966d3122af@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000707090554h4eab439di66e1d1966d3122af@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707091536.04591.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00798.txt.bz2 > There is no formal need of approval for porting regression fixes from the > trunk to release branches. If this is good or bad is another question. Well, there is at least an implicit one. Note that Paolo did explicitly request approval for the 4.2 branch, and I don't think we should be more lax for the 4.1 branch than for the 4.2 branch, quite the contrary. -- Eric Botcazou