From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 84767 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2019 15:42:58 -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 84758 invoked by uid 89); 26 Apr 2019 15:42:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=modulo-sched, modulosched, Though 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; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:42:56 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D46E80E5F; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-18.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE87C600C5; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [0/4] Addressing modulo-scheduling bugs To: Roman Zhuykov , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <7f3d315e7de0aeedc65ab7225a3ee794@ispras.ru> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7f3d315e7de0aeedc65ab7225a3ee794@ispras.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg01069.txt.bz2 On 4/22/19 10:45 AM, Roman Zhuykov wrote: > As a freshly appointed maintainer I’m ready to commit my own > modulo-sched patches, but decide to ask here if there are any > objections.  Maybe I should ask any additional approval at this stage?  > If no, I’ll start tomorrow with committing patches 1/4 and 2/4 which are > well-formed regression fixes.  Patch 3/4 doesn’t include test example, > and I don’t know how to add it there, so I am ready to postpone it to > stage 1.  Patch 4/4 is not solving a regression technically. > > First two patches can be also committed into 8 branch.  If no discussion > occurs,  I’ll commit them later this week, e.g. on friday. As a maintainer we trust you to make these decisions. Though if you want guidance, mine would have been to go with #1 and #2 immediately and postpone #3 and #4 for gcc-10. THat appears to be precisely what you've done. Jeff