This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix PR 56077
- From: Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>
- To: Andrey Belevantsev <abel at ispras dot ru>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Olivier Hainque <hainque at adacore dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Leonid Lisovskiy <lly dot dev at gmail dot com>, maxim at kugelworks dot com
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:28:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: Fix PR 56077
- References: <512772F5 dot 3040007 at ispras dot ru> <51594783 dot 2050600 at ispras dot ru> <515E7538 dot 4070408 at ispras dot ru> <2872353 dot 8z9xlFt23k at polaris> <2BF9B339-B6EF-49C4-87ED-FB4195254C89 at adacore dot com> <515EB3DC dot 80807 at ispras dot ru>
On Apr 5, 2013, at 13:22 , Andrey Belevantsev <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I don't know whether backporting this would be better than reverting
>> the offending change as just done on 4.7.
> I'd say for 4.6 the best way is to revert. PR 56077 is not that important, and this 4.6 release will be the last one. For 4.7, we can additionally backport Maxim's patch or revert this one. I'm fine with both options, but I'll test 4.7 backport too just to be ready for that.
Understood, thanks. Who's decision is it to pick one track or the other for 4.7 ?
RMs in addition to the maintainers of this particular area ?