This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Backporting Patches to GCC 7
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:35:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: Backporting Patches to GCC 7
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFiYyc1w7D29N2f7bryN8E7pcvydKY-nO+ihMhz8y=v-waWdpg@mail.gmail.com> <mhng-b880db1b-0598-4fcf-a14c-1467f9bf3cfe@palmer-si-x1c4>
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2017 01:50:42 PDT (-0700), email@example.com wrote:
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them on the
>>>> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only touch the
>>>> RISC-V backend, which I'm a maintainer of. Is there a branch maintainer I'm
>>>> supposed to have sign off on the patches or am I meant to just decide on my own
>>>> what I should commit?
>>>> For reference, here's the patches
>>>> 284b54c RISC-V: Add -mstrict-align option
>>>> 70218e8 RISC-V: Unify indention in riscv.md
>>> In general, backports that aren't fixing regressions or documentation
>>> would need release managers approval. There's some leeway for target
>>> maintainers of ports and other subsystems, for example I sometimes
>>> make executive decisions about the C++ runtime libraries when the
>>> backport only affects an isolated part of the library, or is clearly
>>> safe and an obvious improvement. For bigger changes that aren't
>>> regressions but I'd like to backport I still seek RM approval.
>>> I would guess that for RISC-V which is new in 7.1, if you think the
>>> backport is important and it doesn't affect other targets then it
>>> should be OK.
>>> Maybe one of the release managers can confirm that though.
>> Generally all maintainers can also approve backports.
> OK, thanks. Since the RISC-V port is so new I'd like to be a bit aggressive
> about backporting our fixes. If this goes anything like binutils did, there's
> going to be a handful of bug fixes that trickle in over the next few weeks as
> more people start using the port now that there's a release. For example,
> we've got a few patches in the pipeline that get our -mcmodel=medany working
> passing the test suite.
> Is it OK if I pretty much just backport everything RISC-V related to
> gcc-7-branch, as long as it doesn't touch any other port? I can ping you about
> each patch if you'd like.
Backporting patches that just affect RISC-V (aka in gcc/config/riscv/) is fine.
RISC-V is neither a primary nor secondary target so bugs (or failure to build)
does not block doing releases from the branch so it's your responsibility to
make sure the port stays healthy on the branch.