This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
- Cc: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, Evandro Menezes <e dot menezes at samsung dot com>, Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo dot Tkachov at arm dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:09:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <055b01d06b33$bdcce3d0$3966ab70$ at samsung dot com> <551A5BCA dot 1030203 at arm dot com> <003601d06c13$203447e0$609cd7a0$ at samsung dot com> <CAFk3UF-G-O2E2+RcBix8DCZ1rvK3J6wHAWUU8R5FMo2_NK=O_A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150402225106 dot GA18324 at arm dot com> <CAFk3UF_i5UxLeBP1wQkX1e-ynDkUCA4eyq_2uTg2_8FNcdGmBg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJA7tRY8H5RacdiQGrTLBRL6p06Q+g0HnhHdTdWazxDbQ=aYzw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:53:12PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:51 PM, James Greenhalgh
> > <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
> >> Trunk is currently in Stage 4 development, these patches are fairly
> >> low-risk, but they are certainly not regression fixes. I'll defer
> >> to port maintainers and release managers for the final say, but in my
> >> opinion it would not be appropriate to commit them until Stage 1
> >> development for GCC 6.0 opens (hopefully in a few weeks).
> >
> > I thought that adding flags for new processors was ok at any time,
> > even to backport.
>
> It's usually risk vs reward on a per patch basis and I don't think of
> it as a general rule. We've always avoided the CPU tuning backport
> rule to the FSF branches. The smaller the CPU tuning patch - the
> better it is and in this case I'm comfortable with the patch going in
> as it is adding another tuning option, using existing constructs and
> is not invasive in the backend.
Thanks for the clarification Ramana.
In which case, and now that I've seen that binutils support has also
been accepted, the AArch64 part is OK to commit (assuming no regressions
and no objections from Richard or Jakub).
It would be great if you could follow these up with a patch for
changes.html for GCC 5 for both ARM and AArch64.
Cheers,
James