This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Subreg-byte patches (was: Branching for GCC 3.0)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:51:58 +0100
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>, Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>, Robert Lipe <robertlipe at usa dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <200101090101.RAA16566@racerx.synopsys.com>
- Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:01:07PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > In my opinion that means we should really consider integrating it into our
> > mainline ASAP, and in fact an additional release criterion for GCC 3.0.
> > Else, GNU/Linux distributions for SPARC (which means UltraSPARC these
> > days) have *no* *choice* but rolling a GCC release of their own, similiar
> > to what Red Hat did with GCC 2.96, and we certainly don't really want
> > that, do we?
> I want to be careful about giving Mark a big additional job to do, but I
> see your point. In an ideal world this thing would have been merged some
> time ago, but lacking time machines we have to decide now.
> What is the level of effort required to get the subreg patch in?
It needs a global write privileges maintainer to spend a day or more
probably couple of days reviewing it. Andrew MacLeod is AFAIK updating
subreg-byte branch to current CVS trunk at the moment, I can put my hands on
it as well.