Re: [PATCH] Better insertion of hint and hbrp insns. SPU, sched, hint

[<Trevor_Smigiel at playstation dot sony dot com>]

Vlad,

Is this patch OK for the 4.3 branch?

Trevor

* Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> [2008-09-05 09:15]:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>   
> The change in machine independent part is very safe.  It is actually one 
> new function which is used by one target.  So as insn scheduler maintainer 
> I don't worry that the change will create a problem on stage3.  So it is ok 
> to me to commit the patch even on stage 3.
>
> Vlad
>