On 10/19/18 9:29 PM, Stafford Horne wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:55:35PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 10/18/18 2:06 PM, Stafford Horne wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 03:22:56PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> is there a chance to get the or1k support integrated before the GCC 9 stage >>>> 3? >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I would definitly like that and that is my goal. It seems the limiting >>> factor >>> is getting technical review and signoff on this set of patches. >>> >>> I will send out a PATCH v3 with a few minor enhancements gathered since v2 >>> today >>> or tomorrow. Then I will try to ping a few people if I dont get reviews by >>> next >>> week. >> Also note that for a port with minimal bleed out (and I think the or1k >> qualifies) we can still integrate it during stage3. BUt obviously it'd >> better to get it in during stage1. > > Thanks for the info. Its good to know the hard deadline is not this month for > me. > > Did you get any chance to look at the second patch series for the OpenRISC gcc > patches? I added the function comments you were asking for. Also Richard > fixed > up a few other things you were mentioning. > > I understand you must be busy with the upcoming lockdown. Less about that and more about non-upstream stuff -- it's been taking an inordinate amount of time.
Given that folks where generally happy with the last iteration, I don't expect it's going to be a problem getting this in -- most of the change requests were relatively minor IIRC. Hell, I don't think anyone would likely complain if rth ack'd it himself. He may not be doing a ton of GCC work anymore, but he's got a sterling reputation here. jeff
