From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14316 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2014 15:15:24 -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 14301 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jan 2014 15:15:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:15:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0DFFCFs030979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:15:12 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-36.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.36]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0DFFBRD000312; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:15:11 -0500 Message-ID: <52D402FF.5020003@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:15:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek , Richard Biener , Kirill Yukhin , Uros Bizjak CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20140113080711.GS892@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140113080711.GS892@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00731.txt.bz2 On 01/13/14 01:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping 2 patches: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00140.html > - Ensure GET_MODE_{SIZE,INNER,NUNITS} (const) is constant rather than > memory load after optimization (I'd like to keep the current > patch for the reasons mentioned there, but also add this patch) I'd tend to think this is 4.10/5.0 material. Unless (for example), you've got a PR where this makes a significant difference in compile time. jeff