Pinging patches

Pinging patches

[Jeff Law]

Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle 
right now.  Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through 
our queues of patches that were submitted before the deadline.

If you are not currently iterating with a maintainer on a patch that was 
submitted before the close of stage1, please ping the patch, including a 
link to the patch in the archives.


It's important we wrap up the loose ends and move our focus to 
bugfixing.  Speaking strictly  for myself, the bar for what I'll 
consider will be rising daily from now until the release.



Cheers,
Jeff

Re: Pinging patches

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle right
> now.  Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our queues
> of patches that were submitted before the deadline.
>
> If you are not currently iterating with a maintainer on a patch that was
> submitted before the close of stage1, please ping the patch, including a
> link to the patch in the archives.
>
>
> It's important we wrap up the loose ends and move our focus to bugfixing.
> Speaking strictly  for myself, the bar for what I'll consider will be rising
> daily from now until the release.

FYI, I am planning to ping this patch

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02791.html

to fix an ABI wrong code and this patch:

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02605.html

which is a prerequisite for x86 interrupt attribute patch submitted
weeks ago.

-- 
H.J.

Re: Pinging patches

[Jeff Law]

On 11/24/2015 01:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle right
>> now.  Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our queues
>> of patches that were submitted before the deadline.
>>
>> If you are not currently iterating with a maintainer on a patch that was
>> submitted before the close of stage1, please ping the patch, including a
>> link to the patch in the archives.
>>
>>
>> It's important we wrap up the loose ends and move our focus to bugfixing.
>> Speaking strictly  for myself, the bar for what I'll consider will be rising
>> daily from now until the release.
>
> FYI, I am planning to ping this patch
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02791.html
>
> to fix an ABI wrong code and this patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02605.html
>
> which is a prerequisite for x86 interrupt attribute patch submitted
> weeks ago.
I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1.
jeff

Re: Pinging patches

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 01:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a note to folks, we're well into stage3 in our development cycle
>>> right
>>> now.  Richi, Bernd, Jason, myself and others are working through our
>>> queues
>>> of patches that were submitted before the deadline.
>>>
>>> If you are not currently iterating with a maintainer on a patch that was
>>> submitted before the close of stage1, please ping the patch, including a
>>> link to the patch in the archives.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's important we wrap up the loose ends and move our focus to bugfixing.
>>> Speaking strictly  for myself, the bar for what I'll consider will be
>>> rising
>>> daily from now until the release.
>>
>>
>> FYI, I am planning to ping this patch
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02791.html
>>
>> to fix an ABI wrong code and this patch:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02605.html
>>
>> which is a prerequisite for x86 interrupt attribute patch submitted
>> weeks ago.
>
> I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1.
> jeff
>

X86 interrupt attribute was first submitted in September and it
is limited to x86 backend, except for

TARGET_FUNCTION_INCOMING_ARG_RTL

which is no-op for other backends.  We really like to enable it
in GCC 6.

-- 
H.J.

Re: Pinging patches

[Jeff Law]

On 11/24/2015 01:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1.
>> jeff
>>
>
> X86 interrupt attribute was first submitted in September and it
> is limited to x86 backend, except for
>
> TARGET_FUNCTION_INCOMING_ARG_RTL
>
> which is no-op for other backends.  We really like to enable it
> in GCC 6.
I realize all of that, but I think we need to make some changes to the 
FUNCTION_ARGS interface to do this cleanly, and I don't want to push 
something like that during stage3.

Missing gcc6 for this is unfortunate, but not a major loss.

jeff

Re: Pinging patches

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 01:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe hte interrupt patches really need to wait for the next stage1.
>>> jeff
>>>
>>
>> X86 interrupt attribute was first submitted in September and it
>> is limited to x86 backend, except for
>>
>> TARGET_FUNCTION_INCOMING_ARG_RTL
>>
>> which is no-op for other backends.  We really like to enable it
>> in GCC 6.
>
> I realize all of that, but I think we need to make some changes to the
> FUNCTION_ARGS interface to do this cleanly, and I don't want to push
> something like that during stage3.
>

Who will make changes to the FUNCTION_ARGS interface?


-- 
H.J.