From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43290 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2016 11:57:18 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 43274 invoked by uid 89); 15 Apr 2016 11:57:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:57:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9E381104; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-113-22.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.22]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3FBvAB9002163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:57:11 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u3FBv7E3018537; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:08 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u3FBv52D014683; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:05 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:57:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Bernd Schmidt , Martin Jambor Subject: Re: Split out OMP constructs' SIMD clone supporting code (was: Splitting up gcc/omp-low.c?) Message-ID: <20160415115705.GN19207@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20151209131930.GS5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <87si3b4mk3.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <5668638A.5030500@redhat.com> <20151210080835.GX5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <87y48o5toc.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> <87twj54hx6.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> <87h9f441ti.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> <87ega83phf.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> <20160415111507.GL19207@tucnak.redhat.com> <8737qn3x79.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8737qn3x79.fsf@hertz.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00720.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:53:14PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:01:13 +0200, I wrote: > > > > "simdclone" pass, with the > > > > respective supporting code. I will certainly submit line-diff patches if > > > > we agree that this is sound -- these two may actually be good candidates > > > > to do first, individually, and do that now, because they're completely > > > > self-contained. Makes sense? > > > > OK to commit once bootstrap testing succeeded? > > > > Ok > > Committed without changes in r235017. > > > if you manage to do so before the (hopefully intermittent) branching. > > For all the other splitting patches that I have posted/proposed, the idea > then is to commit these onto both gcc-6-branch and trunk? If we branch today, then yes, though the gcc-6-branch commits would need to wait until after 6.1 is released. Jakub