On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:51:01 +0100 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 02:52:20PM +0000, Julian Brown wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:10:29 +0100 > > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > We've been preparing new patches against trunk for the libgomp and > > middle-end bits: I've now posted the former, and the latter are on > > their way soon, I believe. The middle-end bits are also present on > > the gomp-4_0-branch SVN branch (likewise, the libgomp pieces), and I > > believe we're planning to merge the PTX bits there also now they've > > been committed to trunk. > > > > Is it really worthwhile merging our patches to yet another branch at > > this stage? > > The point is that the kyukhin/gomp4-offload branch is mostly reviewed > now (waiting for Richard and/or Honza now to review the last LTO bits) > and your patches have huge overlap with that, so sending patches > against trunk that implement the same thing would mean reviewing the > same bits again, and worse if there are conflicts between the two > patchsets, if both patchsets were to be approved, one couldn't be > committed anyway. Yeah, understood, and apologies for not making that clearer: as Cesar mentions, my patches are meant to apply (as well as I could manage) on top of Ilya's ones that have mostly been approved, and there should be no overlap in functionality (Ilya's patches subsume patches 1-6 in my previously-posted series). Our approach to branch management perhaps hasn't been perfect here -- it didn't dawn on me until quite late in the submission process that Intel had been working on their own branch rather than the gomp-4_0-branch, and that the patches they would be posting would be based on the former rather than the latter. But, we've tried hard to accommodate the differences that have arisen in the meantime. Thanks, Julian
