On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:25:54PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 16:03 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:05 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the most important question is what guarantees there are that it
> > > won't affect non-powerpc* ports too much (my main concern is the 9/26
> > > patch,
> > > plus the C++ FE / libstdc++ changes), and how much does this affect
> > > code generation and overall stability of the PowerPC big endian existing
> > > targets.
> >
> > * 15/26 might be one we can do without. I need to check with Peter
> > Bergner, who originally backported Fabien's patch, but unfortunately he
> > is on vacation. That patch fixed a problem that originated on an x86
> > platform. I can try respinning the patch series without this one and
> > see what breaks, or if Peter happens to see this while he's on vacation,
> > perhaps he can comment.
>
> This was a fix to bring GCC into agreement with XLC++ and clang wrt the
> test case in PR54537. The XL team also had complained separately that
> they couldn't compile programs that included the header file tr1/cmath
> because it contained that bug.
>
> That said, this "fix" is not required for POWER8 or LE support, so
> if the RMs don't want this backported to the FSF 4.8 tree, I'm ok
> with that. That being said, we will ask the 4.8 based distros to
> pick up this patch since it fixes a bug that XL cannot workaround.
IMHO it shouldn't be backported as part of the POWER8/LE series,
it seems unrelated.
If the C++ and libstdc++ maintainers agree that it should be backported,
then it can be, but please do it independently on the rest of the backports.
Jakub
