Palmer Dabbelt writes:
> We talked about this a bit on IRC, but just to reflect it to the
> mailing lists:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 05:34:11 PDT (-0700), s...@gentoo.org wrote:
>>
>> Palmer Dabbelt writes:
>>
>>> Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are
>>> planning on m
We talked about this a bit on IRC, but just to reflect it to the mailing
lists:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 05:34:11 PDT (-0700), s...@gentoo.org wrote:
Palmer Dabbelt writes:
Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are
planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include vari
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:19:07 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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 ne
Palmer Dabbelt writes:
> 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).
>
> I don't think we'd actually agreed to
> > 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
On 4/17/23 12:50, Palmer Dabbelt 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).
I don't think we'd actuall
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).
I don't think we'd actually agreed to a set of branch rules, but it
s
