Re: Back porting the LTO fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch

2014-08-06 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 06/08/14 06:54, Hale Wang wrote:
 Refer to: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01429.html.
 
 Sorry for an extra whitespace.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
 ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Hale Wang
 Sent: 2014年8月6日 13:50
 To: GCC Patches
 Cc: Mike Stump; Richard Biener
 Subject: Back porting the LTO fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch

 Hi,

 I have submitted the patch to fix the ABI mis-matching error caused by LTO
 on
 18th June 2014.

 Refer to : https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01429.html  for
 details.

 This fix was done for trunk. We need this fix included for gcc 4.9 branch.
 So could we back porting this fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch?

 Thanks and Best Regards,
 Hale Wang



 
 
 
 


OK unless a RM objects within 24 hours.

R.



Back porting the LTO fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch

2014-08-05 Thread Hale Wang
Hi,

I have submitted the patch to fix the ABI mis-matching error caused by LTO
on 18th June 2014.

Refer to : https:// gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01429.html  for
details.

This fix was done for trunk. We need this fix included for gcc 4.9 branch.
So could we back porting this fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch? 

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hale Wang





RE: Back porting the LTO fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch

2014-08-05 Thread Hale Wang
Refer to: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01429.html.

Sorry for an extra whitespace.

 -Original Message-
 From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
 ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Hale Wang
 Sent: 2014年8月6日 13:50
 To: GCC Patches
 Cc: Mike Stump; Richard Biener
 Subject: Back porting the LTO fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch
 
 Hi,
 
 I have submitted the patch to fix the ABI mis-matching error caused by LTO
on
 18th June 2014.
 
 Refer to : https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01429.html  for
 details.
 
 This fix was done for trunk. We need this fix included for gcc 4.9 branch.
 So could we back porting this fix to upstream gcc 4.9 branch?
 
 Thanks and Best Regards,
 Hale Wang