Committed on Charlies' behalf as: r206706 for the 4.8 branch r206707 for the 4.7 branch
Christophe. On 17 January 2014 10:28, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: > 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. >
