This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [0/6] v10: stack branch merge to trunk
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Andreas Tobler" <andreast-list at fgznet dot ch>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:32:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [0/6] v10: stack branch merge to trunk
- References: <6dc9ffc80807080953u585e232cm7eb1bf7c1bd4c020@mail.gmail.com> <48922484.8030607@fgznet.ch>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Andreas Tobler
<andreast-list@fgznet.ch> wrote:
> Hi HJ,
>
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Here is the version 10 of patches to merge stack branch to trunk.
>> The difference from the last version is the updated DWARF
>> patch. Here are 7 patches:
>>
>> [1/7] v10: New fields in rtl_data. Richard OKed the last one. Unchanged
>> from the last one.
>> [2/7] v10:: Handle frame pointer for stack alignment. New. Need middle-end
>> review.
>> [3/7] v10: Collect alignment info. Need middle-end review.
>> [4/7] v10: Update DWARF2. Approved by Jason.
>> [5/7] v10: Update x86 backend. Need x86 backend reviewe.
>> [6/7] v10: Update document. Richard OKed the last one. Unchanged from
>> the last one.
>> [7/7] v10: New testscases. Janis has OKed the previous one. Unchanged
>> from the last one.
>
> I'm a bit afraid about the merging politics here.
>
> Concrete, you broke darwin i686 bootstrap at least with 3/7.
>
> What I do not understand is the process. For example, the tuples branch, a
> bit more invasive than yours, called for testers for primary and secondary
> targets they were not able to test them self.
> You did not, but this branch affects all x86 targets, maybe a bit more.
> There is not only linux, we have a few more OS's, and we try to keep the
> freedom of a working target.
>
> So, I'd have expected a call from you for testing your branch on different
> OS's which have the base x86 cpu as default before merging to trunk. I'm
> willing, and I DO testing on all of my machine park cpu's if I'm asked.
>
> The blame is not only against you, but also to the reviewers.
>
> I'd like to propose a merging criteria, merging from a branch to trunk is
> only allowed if a set of primary and secondary targets passed bootstrap and
> testing. If not, the branch has to stay branch until this criteria is
> fulfilled.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html, "Branches". Generally we treat what is
a "branch" somewhat lax as many smaller of them are merged in pieces.
Richard.