Here is the patch series that had been posted in Sep that is aimed to isolate the Android support from targets that actually don't have that support (We discussed the need of it with Jakub here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00185.html):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg01420.html thanks, Alexander 2013/11/27 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:36:18AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> In fact, I would suggest that anyone with a pending patch from prior >> to stage1 close that hasn't gotten feedback by midnight Tuesday ping >> their patch. I'd like to have a sense of everything that is >> outstanding sooner rather than later and wrap up any loose ends as >> quickly as possible. > > Ok, doing that now for my pending patches: > > Masked load/store vectorization: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01268.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01437.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01550.html > > Elemental function support (updated version of the earlier patch): > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03197.html > > AddressSanitizer use-after-return instrumentation: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02070.html > > Use libbacktrace for libsanitizer's symbolization (will need tweaking, > depending on next libsanitizer merge, whether the corresponding > sanitizer_common changes are upstreamed or not, and perhaps to compile > libbacktrace sources again with renamed function names and other tweaks > - different allocator, only subset of files, etc.; but, there is a P1 > bug for this anyway): > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02055.html > > Jakub
