This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Improve PR28796
- From: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:56:57 -0600 (MDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve PR28796
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2006-08-25 Richard Guenther <email@example.com>
> PR target/19116
> * config/i386/i386.c (override_options): Do not set MASK_IEEE_FP
> if flag_unsafe_math_optimizations is specified. We have
> flag_finite_math_only for that.
> * config/i386/i386.md (sqrtxf2): Do not require TARGET_IEEE_FP
> or flag_unsafe_math_optimizations.
> Ok for mainline if we open for general bugfixes? Otherwise ok for 4.3?
Thanks. Yes, this is OK for 4.3, and for mainline should Mark decide to
reopen it for general bug fixes. Alas, I've not been following the recent
release discusssions, but I agree that a temporary return to stage2
would be preferable to diluting efforts with a 4.3 basic improvements
branch, but even that shouldn't be necessary if the regression counts
Of course, my preference is for contributors, including you and I, to
voluntarily hold-off on posting patches that are only suitable for 4.3
until after we branch. Better still to post regression fixes. But
perhaps the burden should be on reviewers not to comment on 4.3 patches?
My apologies if this has all been discussed in a thread that I haven't
caught up with yet, which would explain why your approval request has
the form it does.