> -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Guo [mailto:terry....@arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 15:12 > To: 'Andrew Pinski'; tob...@grosser.es > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Joey Ye > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Move Graphite from using PPL over to ISL > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pins...@gmail.com [mailto:pins...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Andrew > > Pinski > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 2:58 PM > > To: Terry Guo > > Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; tob...@grosser.es; > > seb...@gmail.com; Michael Matz; Diego Novillo; Joey Ye > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move Graphite from using PPL over to ISL > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Terry Guo <terry....@arm.com> wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > What's the plan for 4.7 branch? Will you back port this patch to > 4.7 > > and > > > make it use ISL too? I am going to create a upstream GCC SVN branch > > from 4.7 > > > for development on ARM embedded processors. If there will be some > big > > > changes for 4.7 in near future in terms of replacing PPL with ISL, > I > > will > > > delay the creation of my branch. Thanks. > > > > GCC has a policy of not backporting new features to release branches. > > This can be considered a new feature. In fact what might happen is > > disabling of the graphite support on the 4.7 branch instead. > > > > Is there a reason why you can't do development on the trunk? And > then > > support a 4.7 for your own uses? At Cavium, we try to do development > > on an internal tree and then post them upstream. Though in the > future > > we would like to do things upstream first and then backport features > > to a release branch that we handle internally. > > > > Hi Tobi and Andrew, > > Thanks for your timely answers. I just saw Sebastian's comments: > > Yes, having GCC only depend on ISL and CLooG-ISL (and not depend > anymore on PPL) is our plan for 4.7. > > from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01161.html. > > As for development model, we do work as Andrew said, upstream first and > then backport features. The 4.7 branch I mentioned is mainly because we > want to make a tool chain release based on 4.7 with some fixes > backported from trunk. Don't think it make sense backporting to 4.7 either.
- Joey
