This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, LIBITM] Backport libitm bug fixes to FSF 4.8
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:48:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, LIBITM] Backport libitm bug fixes to FSF 4.8
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1393637537 dot 26373 dot 4 dot camel at otta>
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:32 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> I'd like to ask for permission to backport the following two LIBITM bug
> fixes to the FSF 4.8 branch. Although these are not technically fixing
> regressions, they do fix the libitm.c/reentrant.c testsuite failure on
> s390 and powerpc (or at least it will when we finally get our power8
> code backported to FSF 4.8). It also fixes a real bug on x86 that is
> latent because we don't currently have a test case that warms up the
> x86's RTM hardware enough such that its xbegin succeeds exposing the
> bug. I'd like this backport so that the 4.8 based distros won't need
> to carry this as an add-on patch.
>
> It should also be fairly safe as well, since the fixed code is limited
> to the arches (x86, s390 and powerpc) that define USE_HTM_FASTPATH,
> so all others definitely won't see a difference.
Looks good to me.
> I'll note I CC'd some of the usual suspects interested in TM as well
> as the normal RMs, because LIBITM doesn't seem to have a maintainer
> or reviewer listed in the MAINTAINERS file. Is that an oversight or???
I'm reviewing all libitm patches that I'm aware of (but I don't read
gcc-patches regularly). Should I add myself as maintainer for libitm?
Does this come with any other responsibilities than reviewing patches?
Torvald