From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77502 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2017 22:48:46 -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 77473 invoked by uid 89); 7 Dec 2017 22:48:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:48:44 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B2A55F795; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-2.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843A51F8; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:48:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [001/nnn] poly_int: add poly-int.h To: Richard Biener , GCC Patches , richard.sandiford@linaro.org References: <871sltvm7r.fsf@linaro.org> <87vaj5u7id.fsf@linaro.org> <87efp95c9b.fsf@linaro.org> <87375hvi77.fsf@linaro.org> <4a0e05b6-e5ee-a21d-8240-02bb5e246ee2@redhat.com> <87efo6f9j3.fsf@linaro.org> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <98c2158d-f2f4-9b3f-ea66-bd5abb525e98@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:48:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87efo6f9j3.fsf@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 On 12/07/2017 03:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> So I think that's the final ack on this series. > > Thanks to both of you, really appreciate it! Sorry it took so long. > >> Richard S. can you confirm? I fully expect the trunk has moved some >> and the patches will need adjustments -- consider adjustments which >> work in a manner similar to the patches to date pre-approved. > > Yeah, that's now all of the poly_int patches. I still owe you replies > to some of them -- I'll get to that as soon as I can. NP. I don't think any of the questions were all that significant. Those which were I think you already responded to. > > I'll make the name changes and propagate through the series and then > commit this first patch. I was thinking that for the rest it would > make sense to commit them individually, with individual testing of > each patch, so that it's easier to bisect. I'll try to make sure > I don't repeat the merge mistake in the machine-mode series. > > I think it'd also make sense to divide the commits up into groups rather > than do them all at once, since it's easier to do the individual testing > that way. Does that sound OK? Your call on the best way to stage in. jeff