From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130051 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2015 06:26:01 -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 130041 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2015 06:26:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 06:25:59 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA43ABB1; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 06:25:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <055b01d06b33$bdcce3d0$3966ab70$@samsung.com> <551A5BCA.1030203@arm.com> <003601d06c13$203447e0$609cd7a0$@samsung.com> <20150402225106.GA18324@arm.com> <20150403210956.GA5607@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor From: Richard Biener Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 06:26:00 -0000 To: Sebastian Pop ,James Greenhalgh ,Jakub Jelinek CC: Ramana Radhakrishnan ,Evandro Menezes ,Kyrylo Tkachov ,GCC Patches Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 On April 4, 2015 5:03:14 AM GMT+02:00, Sebastian Pop wrote: >On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, James Greenhalgh > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:53:12PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Sebastian Pop >wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:51 PM, James Greenhalgh >>> > wrote: >>> >> Trunk is currently in Stage 4 development, these patches are >fairly >>> >> low-risk, but they are certainly not regression fixes. I'll defer >>> >> to port maintainers and release managers for the final say, but >in my >>> >> opinion it would not be appropriate to commit them until Stage 1 >>> >> development for GCC 6.0 opens (hopefully in a few weeks). >>> > >>> > I thought that adding flags for new processors was ok at any time, >>> > even to backport. >>> >>> It's usually risk vs reward on a per patch basis and I don't think >of >>> it as a general rule. We've always avoided the CPU tuning backport >>> rule to the FSF branches. The smaller the CPU tuning patch - the >>> better it is and in this case I'm comfortable with the patch going >in >>> as it is adding another tuning option, using existing constructs and >>> is not invasive in the backend. >> >> Thanks for the clarification Ramana. >> >> In which case, and now that I've seen that binutils support has also >> been accepted, the AArch64 part is OK to commit (assuming no >regressions >> and no objections from Richard or Jakub). > >I will wait to hear from Richi or Jakub before committing the two >patches. OK. Richard. >> >> It would be great if you could follow these up with a patch for >> changes.html for GCC 5 for both ARM and AArch64. > >Attached. I will commit this after the two patches adding the >exynos-m1 flags. > >Thanks, >Sebastian