[PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor

[Sebastian Pop]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> On April 4, 2015 5:03:14 AM GMT+02:00, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, James Greenhalgh
>><james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>>I will wait to hear from Richi or Jakub before committing the two
>>patches.
>
> OK.
>

Committed r221883, r221884, and committed the wwwdocs patch to
gcc-5/changes.html

Sebastian