This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Add __builtin_speculation_safe_value



> On Jul 26, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> 
>>>> Port maintainers DO need to decide what to do about speculation, even if
>>>> it is explicitly that no mitigation is needed.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.  But I didn't yet see a request for maintainers to decide that?
>>> 
>> 
>> consider it made, then :-)
> 
> I suggest the following as an appropriate process for anything needing 
> attention from architecture maintainers:
> 
> * Send a message to the gcc list, starting its own thread, CC:ed to all 
> target architecture maintainers, stating explicitly in its first sentence 
> that it is about something needing action from all such maintainers.

Yes, because it was not clear to me that a patch discussion about a speculation builtin was something that every target maintainer was supposed to look at.  "Speculation" is not a term that shows up in my target...

> ...
> * Over the next few months, send occasional reminders, each including a 
> list of the ports that have not been updated.

Would the GCC Wiki be a good place to collect all the responses and track what is still open?  If not, what is a good way to do the tracking?

	paul


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]