On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 06:55:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Alice Carlotti wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 04:55:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > > We have branched for the GCC 16 release. All changes on the > > > releases/gcc-16 > > > branch require release manager approval now. > > > > I pushed some bug fixes to master just after the branch. There are 7 > > commits > > in total; two bug fixes, one testsuite fix, and four miscellaneous > > improvements. Are they ok for the branch now, or do I need to wait until > > after > > the release? > > > > Misc.: e65f4568e9c (upstream/trunk, upstream/master) aarch64 testsuite: > > Merge exts_sve2 into exts > > Test fix: 478ec2ec373 aarch64 testsuite: Fix gating of sme-lutv2 asm tests > > Misc.: 5a9ddd6860e Output mode switching transitions to dump file > > Misc.: 378c191c283 aarch64: Extend comment about saving/restoring zt0 > > Misc.: fabd6595c67 Fix some mode switching doc/comment typos > > Bug fix: 960c8597962 aarch64: Fix ZA state transition [PR119210] > > Bug fix: 3d13dace31d aarch64: Add ZTO_REGNUM and SME_STATE_REGNUM use to > > movt > > At this point we ideally don't want to change the branch at all, or change > it only when gcc doesn't build at all on important target, ABI problems are > found or some P1 appears. > I think none of the above are of that kind, so they can wait for 16.2
Ok, agreed on that. > (if > they should be backported at all, not judging any of that, just mentioning > that miscellaneous improvement category maybe doesn't match the branch > criteria (regression bugfixes or documentation fixes)). Three of them are comment/doc fixes that I think were explicitly approved for backport in an earlier review. I thought Pinski had approved backporting the dump change (to my surprise - I wasn't asking for it), but I actually had just misread the email. I'll leave all of the backporting (including earlier versions) until after the release. Alice > > Jakub >
