This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[RFC] Backport of workaround for cortex-a53 erratum 843419 to 2.24


I have prepared a patchset to backport the workaround for cortex-a53 erratum 843419 [1]
to 2.24 branch and I would like to know which the correct procedures to push them 
upstream.  They backport compromise the following patches:

6186551		Implement branch over stub section
d9ced15		Remove padding before stub sections
357d152		Adjust veneer count
fc6d53b		Factor out _bfd_aarch64_get_stub_for_link_section.
30068a6		Refactor section_group[] representation
5421cc6		Refactor generation of 835769 workaround stubs.
e572930		Use _bfd_aarch64_add_stub_entry_in_group
c53ed7c		[OBV] Fix build -- missing ';'
35fee8b		Factor out _bfd_aarch64_erratum_835769_stub_name
13f622e		Factor out _bfd_aarch64_resize_stubs()
6658567		Factor stub creation code into _bfd_aarch64_create_stub_section
ef85752		Factor out common behaviour between elf_aarch64_create_or_find_stub_sec
2144188		Flip sense of erratum_835769_scan
4c77202		Drop unused argument to elf_aarch64_create_or_find_stub_sec
9b9971a		Remove unused variable
e2cdef4		Remove dead code
8ef229f		Removing unused functions
c8f89a3		Remove Load/Store register (unscaled immediate) alias
4106101		Workaround for Cortex A53 erratum 843419

Which minor adjustments. For other GNU project I contribute, GLIBC, it is up to
release manager to allow or not bugfixes to previous releases. Also, should I send
the patches upstream for evaluation as usual? Also, should I post in the format
of list ([xx/xx] ...) or a inline version attached is suffice?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]