[PATCH] Better insertion of hint and hbrp insns. SPU, sched, hint
Trevor_Smigiel@playstation.sony.com
Trevor_Smigiel@playstation.sony.com
Mon Sep 8 18:27:00 GMT 2008
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
>
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list