From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8365 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2011 13:56:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 8355 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Sep 2011 13:56:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_CX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:55:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p89DtiiO016841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:55:44 -0400 Received: from [10.11.9.198] (vpn-9-198.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.198]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p89DthJG005981; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:55:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4E6A1ADE.2020409@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09) References: <20110909070930.GP27949@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20110909070930.GP27949@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On 09/09/2011 03:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > In particular, is transactional-memory branch mergeable within > a month and half, at least some parts of cxx-mem-model branch, There will certainly be some parts of the branch which would be appropriate for merging with mainline in october. We ought to at least have the new __sync_mem builtins available to replace the old ones, and the testing infrastructure. Im not sure we will have *all* the infrastructure in place, but it should be pretty close if not. Its also fairly low risk. Andrew