From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-397621-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 124288 invoked by alias); 12 May 2015 09:15:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 122026 invoked by uid 89); 12 May 2015 09:15:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNSUBSCRIBE_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com
Received: from fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:15:47 +0000
Received: from arm.com (e106375-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.23])	by cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t4C9FhiA017011;	Tue, 12 May 2015 10:15:43 +0100
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:19:00 -0000
From: James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
To: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,        Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>,        Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Increase static buffer size in aarch64_rewrite_selected_cpu
Message-ID: <20150512091542.GA11388@arm.com>
References: <55352847.8080302@arm.com> <20150420203001.GB7414@arm.com> <5540E3D4.5090107@foss.arm.com> <5551C327.1020401@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5551C327.1020401@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01059.txt.bz2

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:08:55AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Ping on the backport.
> Is this ok for the GCC 5 branch?
> 

As below, yes this is OK for the GCC 5 branch.

> On 29/04/15 14:59, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > On 20/04/15 21:30, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:24:39PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >> UGH, I should not be allowed near strings! This code is on my list of
> >> things I'd love to rewrite to this year! For now, this is OK and please
> >> also queue it for 5.2 when that opens for patches.

Thanks,
James