This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:40:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131118102208 dot GH21297 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <528A57AD dot 3070909 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYZxnwV=n9TkHuWTaj_ZPD0LBUTYwzEyCwd7ZS-MRdm0Fg at mail dot gmail dot com> <528A5A60 dot 1030206 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYa2ASRiVFryrk9YOGsdPROxKHuj1b=M0X6GWuAm3VEnEA at mail dot gmail dot com> <528A5EB4 dot 4050000 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYYGPzcfS5mJOUNddZ63C66Kt33s-ZOL81128E-tNUrcag at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc1afDA2TjP0o4Vry2diKw8NryWLNw3vpAzOsK5gAwnuVQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMbmDYa-1r1cofVF4L+ZEFCc-+CCM-BJMRFFgYT-tbmObhcfiA at mail dot gmail dot com> <528BB898 dot 2060902 at redhat dot com> <CAMbmDYbow-SLK3t42NX4EnmbVpvLq=jG4pr3p67ZD-1VCOJSCQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc38SegEBEUsisKHcywYDx2hb8t06Z9nT=L1t9aec20xvA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc0jda5z=rtu8+hByxURoa9dm0n7cMqRDJUwOosN5sfcMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <528D0575 dot 4090705 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0RmrQG_9J+OV_CCq7=5wTgVZAnbz427N0dgXgjOGkgQQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMbmDYbd-0GfOR537Cnr99iLmh4iiJQL6tGsyvurAcKGwCKK9Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 11/25/13 04:12, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
I'll prepare a patch to remove committed patches. But the first part
of series added new ISA extension support. It is independent from the
checker. Should it be OK to keep ISA in trunk?
I think this can/should reasonably be Uros's call.
I'm sorry we didn't get this moved far enough to make it into GCC 4.9;
if I had thought we were going run into these issues I wouldn't have
suggested you check in the preparatory patches only to have to back them
out later.
Jeff
- References:
- [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting
- Re: [PATCH, MPX, 2/X] Pointers Checker [14/25] Function splitting