On 2/13/26 14:22, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Matthew Malcomson <[email protected]> writes:
Sounds good to me.
Just to confirm you're thinking about this w.r.t. GCC 17 right (given
our point in the release cycle)?
Wanted to set expectations that I won't be picking it up until Stage 1
opens (just so you don't wonder what happened to the discussion).
I'd like to get as many of the performance improvement patches in this
cycle as possible, but I wouldn't mind delaying this one (it was by far
the most minor optimization I had), so I think that's fine probably.
The others I have in my tree are largely quite isolated, and so it may
be acceptable to add them to GCC 16. Still undecided on that (and I'll
need to consult maintainers anyway).
At any rate, I'm fine with that expectation, thanks for letting me know
:-)
No problem -- and to be fair, if the libgomp maintainers do feel it's ok
to put this patch in on its own I will definitely focus on it and make
these changes (it is a high-priority for me) -- I was mostly speaking
from the impression that this won't be the case.
