From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30341 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2015 19:29:53 -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 30329 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2015 19:29:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pd0-f171.google.com Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-pd0-f171.google.com) (209.85.192.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 19:29:52 +0000 Received: by pdbnk13 with SMTP id nk13so53816755pdb.0 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.113.226 with SMTP id jb2mr29796152pbb.32.1428348590015; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.70.53.130 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:29:09 -0700 (PDT) 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> From: Sebastian Pop Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 19:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor To: Richard Biener Cc: James Greenhalgh , Jakub Jelinek , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Evandro Menezes , Kyrylo Tkachov , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > 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. > Committed r221883, r221884, and committed the wwwdocs patch to gcc-5/changes.html Sebastian