On Wed, 10 May 2017 01:35:11 PDT (-0700), richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 09 May 2017 01:50:42 PDT (-0700), richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >>>>> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them >>>>> on the >>>>> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only >>>>> touch the >>>>> RISC-V backend, which I'm a maintainer of. Is there a branch maintainer >>>>> I'm >>>>> supposed to have sign off on the patches or am I meant to just decide on >>>>> my own >>>>> what I should commit? >>>>> >>>>> For reference, here's the patches >>>>> >>>>> 284b54c RISC-V: Add -mstrict-align option >>>>> 70218e8 RISC-V: Unify indention in riscv.md >>>> >>>> In general, backports that aren't fixing regressions or documentation >>>> would need release managers approval. There's some leeway for target >>>> maintainers of ports and other subsystems, for example I sometimes >>>> make executive decisions about the C++ runtime libraries when the >>>> backport only affects an isolated part of the library, or is clearly >>>> safe and an obvious improvement. For bigger changes that aren't >>>> regressions but I'd like to backport I still seek RM approval. >>>> >>>> I would guess that for RISC-V which is new in 7.1, if you think the >>>> backport is important and it doesn't affect other targets then it >>>> should be OK. >>>> >>>> Maybe one of the release managers can confirm that though. >>> >>> Generally all maintainers can also approve backports. >> >> OK, thanks. Since the RISC-V port is so new I'd like to be a bit aggressive >> about backporting our fixes. If this goes anything like binutils did, >> there's >> going to be a handful of bug fixes that trickle in over the next few weeks as >> more people start using the port now that there's a release. For example, >> we've got a few patches in the pipeline that get our -mcmodel=medany working >> passing the test suite. >> >> Is it OK if I pretty much just backport everything RISC-V related to >> gcc-7-branch, as long as it doesn't touch any other port? I can ping you >> about >> each patch if you'd like. > > Backporting patches that just affect RISC-V (aka in gcc/config/riscv/) is > fine. > RISC-V is neither a primary nor secondary target so bugs (or failure to build) > does not block doing releases from the branch so it's your responsibility to > make sure the port stays healthy on the branch.
OK, thanks!
