This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Better insertion of hint and hbrp insns. SPU, sched, hint
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Trevor_Smigiel at playstation dot sony dot com
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Michael Meissner <meissner at the-meissners dot org>, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, andrew_pinski at playstation dot sony dot com
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Better insertion of hint and hbrp insns. SPU, sched, hint
- References: <20080827001508.GM27746@playstation.sony.com> <48BAB6D8.6050600@redhat.com> <20080905003612.GY27746@playstation.sony.com>
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Trevor_Smigiel@playstation.sony.com wrote:
> A question for the release managers. What is the policy for checking in
> to mainline after the change to stage 3? I submitted the patch before
> the deadline, is it ok to check it in?
In general, maintainers of parts of the compiler have discretion to decide
what changes to allow in even if they do not strictly meet the general
definition of appropriate changes for stage 3. Maintainers of the
language and target independent parts of the compiler, the C and C++ front
ends, the C++ runtime library, libgcc and primary and secondary targets
need to be especially conservative about this so that we achieve the
desired stabilisation and avoid new features introducing regressions;
similarly, we can be less conservative early in stage 3 than later on.
There is no general rule that submission before stage 3 means a patch can
be committed during stage 3; the relevant maintainers need to consider the
risks and benefits to decide whether it's OK at a particular point in
stage 3.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com