On 16/01/14 18:40, Charles Baylis wrote: > On 20 December 2013 13:26, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 19/12/13 17:40, Charles Baylis wrote: >>> Is it ok for 4.8, and should it be considered for 4.7? >>> >> >> Yes, provided it passes testing on those releases. > > Results of testing 4.8: > All 3 patches: > 0001-PR-target-59142-vfp_hard_register_operand.patch > 0002-PR-target-59142-arm_hard_general_register_operand.patch > 0003-PR-target-59142-low_register_operand.patch > apply correctly, and I have verified that ldmstm.md is correctly > patched and does not need to be regenerated and have tested that the > compiler bootstraps and passes make check in a arm-linux-gnueabihf > configuration on a chromebook. > > > Results of testing 4.7: > Only the following 2 patches should be applied as patch 0001 modifies > a pattern which does not exist on the 4.7 branch. > 0002-PR-target-59142-arm_hard_general_register_operand.patch > 0003-PR-target-59142-low_register_operand.patch > I have verified that ldmstm.md is correctly patched and does not need > to be regenerated and have tested that the compiler bootstraps in a > arm-linux-gnueabi configuration on a chromebook. > > I think this is OK to be committed to both branches? >
OK. R.
