On April 13, 2015 3:12:48 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 04/11/2015 04:27 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to ask an RM or global reviewer to kindly consider the >> following patches preventing one or the other target in >config-list.mk >> to build: >> >> [PATCH, bfin] handle BFIN_CPU_UNKNOWN in TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00034.html >OK. > >> >> [PATCH, c6x] handle unk_isa in TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00089.html >OK. > >> >> >> Cosmetic patchlets pending but probably for stage 1 now: >> >> Remove redundant guard in emit_bss() >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00337.html >OK. > >> >> tree-tailcall: Commentary typo fix, remove fwd declaration >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00342.html >OK. > >> >> s/ ;/;/g Makefile.tpl >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00380.html >OK > >Note there is a policy that requires all patches to be bootstrapped and > >regression tested. These are trivial enough that I'll approve them >as-is. However, in the future, please bootstrap and regression test >changes whenever possible.
I'm aware of this policy. I did my best not to break other configs. By now all of the above were pushed including the erroneously committed https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01270.html to fix PR target/47122 vax-*-openbsd* config.gcc typo that Jakub was kind enough to confirm to be obvious on IRC. Thanks for your reviews! Since I touched Makefile.tpl and there was at least one other patch against it in GCC, i would be grateful if someone could synch Makefile.tpl back to binutils-gdb in two days or three so I can sleep well again a couple of days after that :) cheers,
