This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 5 Status Report (2015-01-19), Trunk in Stage 4
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:08:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC 5 Status Report (2015-01-19), Trunk in Stage 4
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501191016120 dot 12482 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20150127085256 dot GA5862 at maggie> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501271002380 dot 12482 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > I would like to apply the following patch:
> > [PATCH] S/390: -mhotpatch v2
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02370.html
> > It is a backend only change to our existing -mhotpatch feature
> > requested by the Linux kernel guys for the ftrace implementation:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/26/320
> > They need it in an upstream GCC asap. If we don't get it into 5.0 we
> > probably would need to commit it onto 5.1 branch right after the
> > release. I would rather try to avoid this since it would make the
> > hotpatch feature incompatible between 5.0 and 5.1.
> > Ok to do it now?
> Ok. It needs an entry in changes.html.
> Do you plan to backport this change?
> Did you consider using an alternate option name instead of changing
> it in an incompatible way? I realize SUSE will need to backport this
Yeah, the option incompatibility worries me. Can't -mhotpatch without =
stand for the old behavior? Does it map to some -mhotpatch=X,Y value,
or is it not worth to support both?