From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 110223 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2016 04:00:59 -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 110189 invoked by uid 89); 14 Feb 2016 04:00:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MANYTO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=conveyed, loosemore, Loosemore, HTo:U*sandra X-HELO: bosmailout07.eigbox.net Received: from bosmailout07.eigbox.net (HELO bosmailout07.eigbox.net) (66.96.185.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:00:56 +0000 Received: from bosmailscan06.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.6]) by bosmailout07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1aUnri-0001Gw-Cp for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:00:54 -0500 Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan06.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1aUnrg-0008Lg-O2 for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:00:52 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp05.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.5]) by bosimpout12 with id J40p1s00M06Zqne0140sMk; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:00:52 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=HK1NF+dv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=eBvjjtMVdWwtQGedh7GyLg==:117 a=sZx1nW7oDdbgogxTPqu5Xw==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=88b2x-oFWvEA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=jFJIQSaiL_oA:10 a=mDV3o1hIAAAA:8 a=KwlufCwNaRb6XA8SC8gA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=xd_iTuiNXg4A:10 Received: from [207.118.20.56] (port=50798 helo=[192.168.1.160]) by bosauthsmtp05.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1aUnrd-0006Vs-EB; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:00:49 -0500 Subject: Re: AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm To: Sandra Loosemore , Bernd Schmidt , 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> <56BE80F4.6060803@codesourcery.com> Cc: "segher@kernel.crashing.org" , "Paul_Koning@Dell.com" , Jeff Law , Andrew Haley , David Wohlferd From: David Wohlferd Message-ID: <56BFFBD9.7010202@LimeGreenSocks.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56BE80F4.6060803@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EN-UserInfo: 97390230d6758ac7ebdf93f8c6197d31:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dw@limegreensocks.com X-EN-OrigIP: 207.118.20.56 X-EN-OrigHost: unknown X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00927.txt.bz2 On 2/12/2016 5:03 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > 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. Fair enough. Committing what we can right now sounds like a good plan. Bernd and I have both posted alternate text to what was in the last patch (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00861.html). He proposed (and I agreed) that having you make the call about which was better might be reasonable way to finalize this. If you want to pick one, I'll remove the Wbasic-asm and turn it into a doc-only patch. Or maybe you'd rather scrap them both and propose your own? I'm flexible here. There are important concepts that need to be conveyed. Doesn't much matter to me who writes them. dw