This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Backporting gcc_qsort
- From: Cory Fields <lists at coryfields dot com>
- To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:29:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: Backporting gcc_qsort
- References: <CAApLimg7SM-H1-YBZ0DNS=JswDicJjWYeMOjGsuOX7XKZM7dYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0ShYe9TdAM=YK-7HpSJxi3xoPXPCeN3MoGOc7hiTOwYw@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: lists at coryfields dot com
Understood. Thank you for the explanations.
I'll just plan to apply the patches locally as well.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM Alexander Monakov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> > To add a bit more context for Cory.
> > Generally backports are limited to fixing regressions and serious code
> > generation bugs. While we do make some exceptions, those are good
> > general guidelines.
> > I don't think the qsort changes warrant an exception.
> Personally I think in this case there isn't a strong reason to backport, the
> patch is fairly isolated, so individuals or companies that need it should have
> no problem backporting it on their own. Previously, Franz Sirl reported back
> in June they've used the patch to achieve matching output on their Linux-hosted
> vs Cygwin-hosted cross-compilers based on GCC 8: