Re: Release 2.21.1 ?

[Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>]

On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> while handling several breakages in linux-next kernel, it showed PR
>>>> gas/12519 (see [1]) is somehow incomplete as it gives no pointer to
>>>> the symbol name in case of an error.
>>>> "Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression." (see [2]) as a
>>>> follow-up patch definitely helps to enlighten developer's where to dig
>>>> into occuring problems.
>>>> "Revert the last change on gas/elf/bad-size.err." (see [3]) is a fixup to [2].
>>>> 
>>>> It would be nice to see [2] and [3] backported to 2.21-branch.
>>> 
>>> Why not.
>>> 
>>> Does it make sense to generate a warning instead of an error in 2.21.1 for backward bug-compatibility ?
>>> Alan, what's your opinion ?
>> 
>> Well, it's plain wrong to accept bad expressions and have gas try to
>> guess what typos mean, so I think it should be an error.  The size
>> info matters to some people.  Ask gdb developers, or anyone writing
>> code analysis and optimization tools.
>> 
>> I also think it highly likely that new binutils and/or gcc will break
>> kernel bisection in other areas.  For that reason I'm inclined to
>> discount the kernel list histrionics over the .size fix.  Kernel
>> kiddies are just going to have to learn to deal with toolchain
>> evolution.
>> 
> 
> Can I apply my size error patch?

Sure.