On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:34:51PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Even with official release you can apply a patch, that is not the point.
> > The point is that many people expect the release branches (and IMHO rightly
> > so) to be supposedly stable all the time, rather than being seriously
> > u
> Even with official release you can apply a patch, that is not the point.
> The point is that many people expect the release branches (and IMHO rightly
> so) to be supposedly stable all the time, rather than being seriously
> unstable most of the time and only converging to stability around the
>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:18:56PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The point of it is that the release branches are actually used by GCC users,
> > many people don't use just official releases, but arbitrary snapshots from
> > the release branches. If a potentially risky patch is applied immediate
> OK, thanks. Richard also gave an RM's OK on IRC so I've now applied it.
Thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
> The point of it is that the release branches are actually used by GCC users,
> many people don't use just official releases, but arbitrary snapshots from
> the release branches. If a potentially risky patch is applied immediately
> also to release branches and soon needs follow-ups (happened man
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Sure, that'd be fine by me. I'm not sure whether the backport has
>> been approved yet though.
>
> At least it looks fine to me...
OK, thanks. Richard also gave an RM's OK on IRC so I've now applied it.
> [I still don't grasp this "wait-a-little-before-backporting" pol
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:16:14AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Sure, that'd be fine by me. I'm not sure whether the backport has
> > been approved yet though.
>
> At least it looks fine to me...
>
> [I still don't grasp this "wait-a-little-before-backporting" policy, it
> always
> leads to
> Sure, that'd be fine by me. I'm not sure whether the backport has
> been approved yet though.
At least it looks fine to me...
[I still don't grasp this "wait-a-little-before-backporting" policy, it always
leads to forgotten patches that need to be applied just days ahead of releases
instead
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> It has been two weeks since Richard commited this to trunk. Perhaps it's
>> ok to backport to 4.8 branch now?
>
> Richard, can you do that before the 4.8.3 release? Thanks in advance.
Sure, that'd be fine by me. I'm not sure whether the backport has
been approved yet th
> It has been two weeks since Richard commited this to trunk. Perhaps it's
> ok to backport to 4.8 branch now?
Richard, can you do that before the 4.8.3 release? Thanks in advance.
--
Eric Botcazou
--
From: Yury Gribov
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:57AM
To: Jakub Jelinek , Eric Botcazou
, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Hans-Peter Nilsson
, rdsandif...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Do not consider volatile asms as optimization barriers #1
On
11 matches
Mail list logo
