From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19396 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2011 20:09:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 19381 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2011 20:09:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.synsport.com (HELO shepard.synsport.net) (208.69.230.148) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:09:36 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.225] (atoulouse-256-1-103-201.w86-210.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.210.190.201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB9643B97; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:09:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D768CB6.7000002@marino.st> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:09:00 -0000 From: John Marino User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Wildenhues CC: Mike Frysinger , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix support for DragonFly BSD on binutils 2.21 and trunk References: <4D767199.1000607@marino.st> <4D76830B.9060902@marino.st> <4D7684FE.80304@marino.st> <20110308194253.GD30822@gmx.de> <4D768774.8090507@marino.st> <20110308200059.GF30822@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20110308200059.GF30822@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * John Marino wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:45:56PM CET: >> Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> I'm fine with updating the file from the gnulib master copy, but please >>> in sync with GCC, and let's give em the (hopefully very short) time now >>> to branch, so this doesn't interfere. > >> I didn't quite follow that. >> Did you say you want to wait until gcc trunk branches to 4.6 before >> updating config.guess on both gcc and binutils simultaneously? > > Right. > >> Wouldn't people want the very latest config.guess in place before >> branching? > > A month ago: for sure. A week ago: maybe. Now? Ask a release manager > if they want a change that doesn't fix an apparent regression, right > now, where they're about to branch RSN. I'm sure right after the branch > will be a good time for trunk, and after the release will be a good time > for the gcc-4_6 branch. > >> I'm primarily concerned with getting binutils 2.51 fixed >> before it's next release (I saw it went into beta today?) > > Well if binutils schedule conflicts, I guess it it better to break sync > between GCC and src temporarily. Other than that, at least for GCC I'd > consider it a bit of a stretch to try to start supporting some operating > system in the middle of a regression fixes development stage. > > Cheers, > Ralf As I matter of fact, I have over 50 patches that I can push back to gcc when the branching happens (I already have the copyright assignment). One day gcc will support that OS from source tree, but it's not going to be with gcc 4.6.0. I wasn't looking for that either. It's probably obvious that I didn't see the connection between gcc and binutils versions of config.guess. I don't see a problem if binutils supports more systems that gcc. Are you saying that you keep binutils/config.guess and gcc/config.guess in sync with each other? I don't really see it as a break, simply gcc has a subset of the binutils systems (if it were updated independently). Probably I'm being naive though. JOhn