From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50028 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2016 01:03:58 -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 50010 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2016 01:03:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MANYTO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*F:U*sandra X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 01:03:56 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1aUOcn-0002Nb-TB from Sandra_Loosemore@mentor.com ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:03:49 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:03:49 -0800 Subject: Re: AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm To: Bernd Schmidt , David Wohlferd , Bernd Edlinger , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Henderson , "jason@redhat.com" References: <56A54EF9.8060006@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56A61442.3090803@redhat.com> <56A9C134.1030500@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56B80F57.9020606@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56BBCC90.9020001@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56BCAB73.20506@redhat.com> <56BD8427.4050405@LimeGreenSocks.com> <56BDD550.3050908@redhat.com> CC: "segher@kernel.crashing.org" , "Paul_Koning@Dell.com" , Jeff Law , Andrew Haley From: Sandra Loosemore Message-ID: <56BE80F4.6060803@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 01:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56BDD550.3050908@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00913.txt.bz2 On 02/12/2016 05:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote: >> Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there >> is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behavior, and >> adding a (disabled) warning. > > The doc patch (minus mentioning the warning) could go in now, but for > gcc-6 we're at a stage where we're only accepting regression fixes with > very few exceptions. If you can convince a RM that this is important > enough then it could still go in. I looked at the last version of the patch I saw and this is my conclusion as well. If you would like me to commit just the doc change (minus the references to the new warning) now, please split the patch and I will do that. But, I cannot commit the change to add the new warning during Stage 4 without approval from a RM. -Sandra