On 5/3/23 08:33, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2023 08:13:23 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/23 08:14, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2023 02:49:41 PDT (-0700), richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 8:33 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
On 5/2/23 14:34, Patrick O'Neill wrote:
> Is this OK for a backport to GCC-13 as well?
Let me sync with Richi & Jakub. They're the release managers and
this
doesn't fall under the usual rules for things that can be backported.
I would guess that most distros have these patches backported (SUSE
has
that to both 12 and 13), so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Since
That'd be my argument, too. The distros that don't have this probably
have something scarier, like an implicit default to -latomic.
this is backend specific and RISCV is neither primary nor secondary
it's up to the target maintainer discretion to bend the rules.
Fair, though we're trying to at least pretend we're playing by the
rules... ;)
So the net is let's backport this patch series to gcc-13.
Sounds good.
Patrick: do you mind sending up a backport? There was a build fix
that just landed as well.
Will do - thanks.
Patrick
