On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > 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. >
Committed r221883, r221884, and committed the wwwdocs patch to gcc-5/changes.html Sebastian
