From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-90006-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6186 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2004 19:42:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6172 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2004 19:42:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.uk.superh.com) (193.128.105.170)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2004 19:42:30 -0000
Received: from sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com (sh-uk-ex01 [192.168.16.17])
	by smtp.uk.superh.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0QJg9lh012406;
	Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:42:10 GMT
Received: from linsvr1.uk.superh.com ([192.168.16.50]) by sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:43:33 +0000
Received: (from renneckej@localhost)
	by linsvr1.uk.superh.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i0QJg7714298;
	Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:42:07 GMT
From: Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@superh.com>
Message-Id: <200401261942.i0QJg7714298@linsvr1.uk.superh.com>
Subject: Re: Floating point registers vs. LOAD_EXTEND_OP on alpha
To: ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr (Eric Botcazou)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:46:00 -0000
Cc: joern.rennecke@superh.com (Joern Rennecke),
        rth@redhat.com (Richard Henderson),
        rsandifo@redhat.com (Richard Sandiford),
        roger@eyesopen.com (Roger Sayle), gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
        gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <200401262021.48004.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> from "Eric Botcazou" at Jan 26, 2004 08:22:40 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2004 19:43:33.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE9427C0:01C3E444]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01961.txt.bz2

> > 	* postreload.c (reload_cse_simplify_operands): In LOAD_EXTEND_OP code,
> > 	check CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS
> 
> Why did you not put it on the 3.4 branch?

Isn't it up to the release manager to specify which patches he wants to
be applied to the branch?