On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:21 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/28/23 12:56, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>
> >> That's obviously a risky thing to do given it was sent right at the end
> >> of the window, but it meets the rules.
> >>
> >> Folks in the call seemed generally amenable to at least trying for 14,
On 11/28/23 12:56, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
That's obviously a risky thing to do given it was sent right at the end
of the window, but it meets the rules.
Folks in the call seemed generally amenable to at least trying for 14,
so unless anyone's opposed on the lists it seems like the way to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 20:31, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:27:50 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
>
> [Trimming everything else, as this is a big change. I'm also making it
> a new subject/thread, so folks can see.]
>
> > More generally, I think I need to
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:27:50 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
...
[Trimming everything else, as this is a big change. I'm also making it
a new subject/thread, so folks can see.]
More generally, I think I need to soften my prior statement about
deferring this to gcc-15. This code
