From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-74343-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25215 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 14:41:25 -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 25125 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 14:41:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO motgate4.mot.com) (144.189.100.102)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 14:41:23 -0000
Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134])
	by motgate4.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate4) with ESMTP id h4FEfIDS020849;
	Thu, 15 May 2003 07:41:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from motorola.com ([163.14.1.73])
	by il06exr04.mot.com (Motorola/il06exr04) with ESMTP id h4FEfEQx018222;
	Thu, 15 May 2003 09:41:15 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:41:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Branch created: gcc-3_3-e500-branch
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, mark@codesourcery.com,
   geoffk@geoffk.org, dje@watson.ibm.com
From: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com>
In-Reply-To: <87addo25ag.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
Message-Id: <493B0ADC-86E3-11D7-BC42-000393DBC2E8@motorola.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01515.txt.bz2

Zach,

Thanks for the relpy.

Mark, Geoff, David

What is your feeling of allowing this branch to be merged back into the 
3.3 line?  I know we have a number of customers that this would greatly 
facilitate.

Thanks

- kumar

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 11:38 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@motorola.com> writes:
>
>> Zach, Aldy
>>
>> What's the state of the gcc-3_3-e500-branch?
>
> It works, as far as I know.  I need to do another merge from the 3.3
> release branch now that GCC 3.3.0 has officially been shipped.  I'm
> also considering applying David Edelsohn's patches for the 440 chip;
> it's not strictly relevant to the e500, but my clients want it.
>
>> Is it feasible to merge it back into 3.3 so that 3.3.1 has fully
>> working e500 support?
>
> That's a question you should be asking the PowerPC port maintainers
> and the release manager, not either of us.  I would like to see it
> happen; however, some of the changes I had to backport could be seen
> as risky, such as the 3.4 genautomata.c (although not any of the rest
> of the scheduler).
>
> zw