This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Backporting Patches to GCC 7
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:50:42 +0200
- Subject: Re: Backporting Patches to GCC 7
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <mhng-efff0fe7-8cc3-4202-a38a-0f3a2588c666@palmer-si-x1c4> <CAH6eHdSKOaTR0vVZeOfBJWhin94xc4atYawVhj0SnUKPRdW1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them on the
>> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only touch the
>> RISC-V backend, which I'm a maintainer of. Is there a branch maintainer I'm
>> supposed to have sign off on the patches or am I meant to just decide on my own
>> what I should commit?
>>
>> For reference, here's the patches
>>
>> 284b54c RISC-V: Add -mstrict-align option
>> 70218e8 RISC-V: Unify indention in riscv.md
>
> In general, backports that aren't fixing regressions or documentation
> would need release managers approval. There's some leeway for target
> maintainers of ports and other subsystems, for example I sometimes
> make executive decisions about the C++ runtime libraries when the
> backport only affects an isolated part of the library, or is clearly
> safe and an obvious improvement. For bigger changes that aren't
> regressions but I'd like to backport I still seek RM approval.
>
> I would guess that for RISC-V which is new in 7.1, if you think the
> backport is important and it doesn't affect other targets then it
> should be OK.
>
> Maybe one of the release managers can confirm that though.
Generally all maintainers can also approve backports.
Richard.