On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:53:12PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:51 PM, James Greenhalgh > > <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: > >> Trunk is currently in Stage 4 development, these patches are fairly > >> low-risk, but they are certainly not regression fixes. I'll defer > >> to port maintainers and release managers for the final say, but in my > >> opinion it would not be appropriate to commit them until Stage 1 > >> development for GCC 6.0 opens (hopefully in a few weeks). > > > > I thought that adding flags for new processors was ok at any time, > > even to backport. > > It's usually risk vs reward on a per patch basis and I don't think of > it as a general rule. We've always avoided the CPU tuning backport > rule to the FSF branches. The smaller the CPU tuning patch - the > better it is and in this case I'm comfortable with the patch going in > as it is adding another tuning option, using existing constructs and > is not invasive in the backend.
Thanks for the clarification Ramana. In which case, and now that I've seen that binutils support has also been accepted, the AArch64 part is OK to commit (assuming no regressions and no objections from Richard or Jakub). It would be great if you could follow these up with a patch for changes.html for GCC 5 for both ARM and AArch64. Cheers, James
