From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26806 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2004 20:06:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26743 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2004 20:06:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2004 20:06:29 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (213.36.36.190) by mail.libertysurf.net (6.5.033) id 4015482000041130; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:06:14 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Eric Botcazou To: Joern Rennecke Subject: Re: Floating point registers vs. LOAD_EXTEND_OP on alpha Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: rth@redhat.com (Richard Henderson), rsandifo@redhat.com (Richard Sandiford), roger@eyesopen.com (Roger Sayle), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <200401261942.i0QJg7714298@linsvr1.uk.superh.com> In-Reply-To: <200401261942.i0QJg7714298@linsvr1.uk.superh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200401262107.17048.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01963.txt.bz2 > Isn't it up to the release manager to specify which patches he wants to > be applied to the branch? Sure, but leaving a patch which is known to cause problems on a branch is not very nice. I think you should either put the complete fix or revert the first half. -- Eric Botcazou