This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patches for the 2.95 branch
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: Patches for the 2.95 branch
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:32:56 +0000 (GMT)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011301140330.1162-100000@host117.cygnus> you write:
> >I'll apply the following patches, one by one, to the 2.95 branch. I've
> >bootstrapped this set on i686-linux, sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1 and alphaev6-linux
> >and regression tested it on the same targets against the current testsuite.
>
> Can you also apply the diff between versions 1.45 and 1.46 to
> gcc/config/arm/arm.h and arm.c please? i.e.
>
> cvs update -r 1.45 -r 1.46 arm.h
> cvs update -r 1.56 -r 1.57 arm.c
>
> This was the ChangeLog entry for the change:
>
> Thu Jul 29 19:01:58 1999 Bernd Schmidt <bernds@cygnus.co.uk>
>
> * arm.h (Hint): Delete macro.
> Substitute HOST_WIDE_INT for Hint in some prototypes.
> * arm.c: Substitute HOST_WIDE_INT for Hint in one prototype.
I'll apply that one.
> What are the boundaries for 2.95.3 additions? Would it, for example, be
> permissible to add the sparclite-elf and i386-elf targets which are
> (other than top-level configure) self contained? They consist solely
> of additions of the the relevant header and t- makefile fragments.
Well, the official policy is "no new features". I agree that such an
addition can't possibly hurt stability, however it will take some time
to integrate these patches which may be better spent on other issues.
Also, why do you need this for 2.95? 3.0 should be available relatively
soon and will include these targets.
I'll think about it. Do you have this available as a drop-in patch?
Bernd