On April 4, 2015 5:03:14 AM GMT+02:00, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, James Greenhalgh ><james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: >> 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). > >I will wait to hear from Richi or Jakub before committing the two >patches.
OK. Richard. >> >> It would be great if you could follow these up with a patch for >> changes.html for GCC 5 for both ARM and AArch64. > >Attached. I will commit this after the two patches adding the >exynos-m1 flags. > >Thanks, >Sebastian
