This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch, AVR]: PR42240 - Fix epilogue of naked functions

From: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>
To: Denis Chertykov <chertykov at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Anatoly Sokolov <aesok at post dot ru>, Eric Weddington <eric dot weddington at atmel dot com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:00:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [Patch, AVR]: PR42240 - Fix epilogue of naked functions
References: <4D63C3D4.1080000@gjlay.de> <4D68F893.5030801@gjlay.de> <AANLkTimcdsbbH9t1SuMvxhcMO=iCht6huupeA4RLx1-C@mail.gmail.com> <4D6F8E78.50209@gjlay.de> <AANLkTi=7gYJ5NRUhV-AUU96LYBw6E6h1SDH2qqupL3e=@mail.gmail.com>

Denis Chertykov schrieb:

Denis.


This are backports to 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 branch, respectively
(branches/gcc-4_*-branch/)

Why you want to backport so deep ?
IMHO trunk and 4.5 is enough.
Applied to 4.5

Denis.

I don't know what the policy concerning the depth of backporting bugfixes actually is. At least the check-in rule is "documentation and bug fixes only" so I though (backport of) bugfix is all right.

My intention was to go deep enough to have PR42240 resolved/fixed, i.e.
in all versions that are still supported.

Or what backports must be done in order to have it resolved/fixed?

Johann

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [Patch, AVR]: PR42240 - Fix epilogue of naked functions
  - From: Weddington, Eric

References:
- Re: [Patch, AVR]: PR42240 - Fix epilogue of naked functions
  - From: Georg-Johann Lay
- Re: [Patch, AVR]: PR42240 - Fix epilogue of naked functions
  - From: Denis Chertykov

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]