From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26906 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2013 09:41:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 26895 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Feb 2013 09:41:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ea0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-ea0-f173.google.com) (209.85.215.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:41:42 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id i1so1091686eaa.4 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:41:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.183.67 with SMTP id p43mr37042485eem.10.1361785301229; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com. [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s3sm17325957eem.4.2013.02.25.01.41.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:41:40 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Moore\, Catherine" Mail-Followup-To: "Moore\, Catherine" ,"gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" , "Rozycki\, Maciej" , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: "gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" , "Rozycki\, Maciej" Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH] [MIPS] microMIPS gcc support References: <87y5mfjm4c.fsf@talisman.home> <87622noebh.fsf@talisman.default> <87ip5wv3rj.fsf@talisman.default> <87sj4sw48r.fsf@talisman.default> <87r4k9uzxn.fsf@talisman.default> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Catherine Moore's message of "Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:52:02 +0000") Message-ID: <87txp0lohf.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg01108.txt.bz2 "Moore, Catherine" writes: > HI Richard, > The base patch is now committed. The final patch, including your final > edits is attached. I will be posting the optimization pieces later this > week. Sorry, when I said that it was ok for 4.9, I meant that it should wait until 4.8 had branched. As I say, I think the patch is too invasive for 4.8 at this (regression fixes only) stage. Please revert the patch for now and reapply it once 4.9 starts. Richard