Or, you can cc Jason directly, and ping it. His mailbox filtering has him reading a subset of the patches emails, (those with C++ as I recall), so this is likely the first time he has seen it.
> On May 16, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org> wrote: > > This is my fifth ping. I just need someone to rubber stamp it so I > can check it in. > > Maybe it would be easier if I volunteered to be a doc maintainer so I > can self approve it? > > Jim > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jim Wilson <jim.wil...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Here is a patch to correct the -fabi-version docs on the GCC 5 branch. >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00480.html >> >> You can see the default -fabi-version in gcc/c-family/c-opts.c on the >> gcc-5 branch which has >> >> /* Change flag_abi_version to be the actual current ABI level for the >> benefit of c_cpp_builtins. */ >> if (flag_abi_version == 0) >> flag_abi_version = 9; >> >> You can see in the docs that -fabi-version only goes up to 8. >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options >> >> As for how we got here... >> I see that the patch for bug 65945 was back ported to the gcc-5 >> branch, which required a partial backport of the patch for bug 44282, >> which added abi version 9. The original patch for 44282 is missing >> the doc change. >> >> The missing doc change was then added here >> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=228017 >> which has the invoke.texi hunk we need, but is missing a ChangeLog >> entry for it. So it appears all we need is a partial backport of this >> invoke.texi hunk. This is mostly documenting a change to -Wabi, so we >> only need parts of two hunks that document -fabi-version=9 and mention >> gcc-5.2. >> >> The patch is attached again. >> >> Jim
abi-version-9.patch
Description: Binary data
