On 4/18/23 04:34, Kito Cheng wrote:
Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are
planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include various
performance-related backports (ie, patches not suitable for the standard
GCC-13 release branch).
Did you consider also include necessary vectorizeor stuffs? I expect there would
be some patch in middle end for enable auto vec, like this:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/gcc/patch/20230407014741.139387-1-juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai/
I think to some degree middle end patches are inevitable. I think the
same basic guidelines applies. If it's on the trunk, then pulling it
over to our branch is implicitly OK.
I don't think we'd actually agreed to a set of branch rules, but it
seems like the following were where the discussion ended up:
* Make a "riscv" vendor branch. I don't think we came up with a name,
but "riscv/gcc-13-perf" seems fine to me.
* Regularly rebase the branch on the GCC-13 release branch.
I would prefer merge rather than rebase since let us have a stable
sha1 as some reference point.
I slightly prefer the rebase approach. Its easier to see where we are
relative to the current gcc-13 bits. Doing an occasional forced update
isn't that bad (I've worked with this kind of flow for shared topic
branches in the past). But if you feel strongly, I can live with a
merge flow as well.
Jeff
