On 3/23/23 20:28, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:18:20 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. We don't have a hard need there, but it'll make life easier so I'm
happy to just treat it like a real shipping branch if you guys are going
to as well.
I'd planned to use it for Ventana's gcc-13 baseline since we're going to
want RVV support before gcc-14 hits the streets. So from Ventana's
viewpoint is's like a real shipping branch.
Are you OK just having a single "gcc-13 with RISC-V performance
backports" branch, or do you want just vector backports? Our internal
branch would be all performance-related backports, but no big deal if
the upstream stuff is vector-only as that's probably going to be 90%+ of
the churn.
I can live with performance backports. It wasn't my original intent,
but I see the benefits to the ecosystem.
Thanks for raising the need for a development coordination branch.
I guess "need" is kind of strong: IMO it's up to the people actually
doing the work how to organize the branches. I'm not writing the code
here so I'm happy with whatever, just pointing out that there's two
different things that could be done ;)
I think there's enough interested parties for the development side as
well that ca;ling it a "need" isn't a significant stretch.
jeff
