[gcc-4_8-branch] Fix the issue of incorrectly using #ifdef HAVE_ATTR_enabled

Submitted by Chung-Ju Wu on Aug. 14, 2013, 8:09 p.m.

Details

Message ID CADj25HMeiWu9p5hqT2HgmRfHf8dydr-TkyapFm_wrXYS3RXCCg@mail.gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Chung-Ju Wu Aug. 14, 2013, 8:09 p.m.
Hi, Jakub,

According to this discussion thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-08/msg00142.html

The bug that David mentioned has been fixed on trunk but not on 4.8 branch.
IMHO it would be a good idea to backport it and Vladmir agreed with that.

The patch and a plaintext ChangeLog are as follow.
Bootstraped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Is it OK to backport it into gcc-4_8-branch?




Best regards,
jasonwucj

Comments

Jakub Jelinek Aug. 14, 2013, 8:18 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:09:18AM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> According to this discussion thread:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-08/msg00142.html
> 
> The bug that David mentioned has been fixed on trunk but not on 4.8 branch.
> IMHO it would be a good idea to backport it and Vladmir agreed with that.

Generally maintainers can ack backports to release branches, RM ack isn't
needed, unless the branch is frozen.  This is ok.

	Jakub
Chung-Ju Wu Aug. 15, 2013, 8:09 a.m.
2013/8/15 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:09:18AM +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> According to this discussion thread:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-08/msg00142.html
>>
>> The bug that David mentioned has been fixed on trunk but not on 4.8 branch.
>> IMHO it would be a good idea to backport it and Vladmir agreed with that.
>
> Generally maintainers can ack backports to release branches, RM ack isn't
> needed, unless the branch is frozen.  This is ok.
>
>         Jakub

Thanks for clarifying it.
I will follow this ack policy for other patches.
Also, thank your and Vlad's approval. :)

Committed into gcc-4_8-branch as Rev.201764
  http://gcc.gnu.org/r201764


Best regards,
jasonwucj

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

Index: gcc/ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- gcc/ChangeLog       (revision 201718)
+++ gcc/ChangeLog       (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ 
+2013-08-14  David Given  <dg@cowlark.com>
+
+       Backport from mainline
+       2013-04-26  Vladimir Makarov  <vmakarov@redhat.com>
+
+       * lra-constraints.c (process_alt_operands): Use #if HAVE_ATTR_enable
+       instead of #ifdef.
+
 2013-08-13  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

        PR sanitizer/56417


Index: gcc/lra-constraints.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/lra-constraints.c       (revision 201718)
+++ gcc/lra-constraints.c       (working copy)
@@ -1388,7 +1388,7 @@ 
   for (nalt = 0; nalt < n_alternatives; nalt++)
     {
       /* Loop over operands for one constraint alternative.  */
-#ifdef HAVE_ATTR_enabled
+#if HAVE_ATTR_enabled
       if (curr_id->alternative_enabled_p != NULL
          && ! curr_id->alternative_enabled_p[nalt])
        continue;