2.38 branch date approaching

2.38 branch date approaching

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Guys,

   The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
   looks like this:

      Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
      Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release

   It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
   before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
   I would prefer to keep them if we can.

   Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
   to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
   anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
   patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.

Cheers
   Nick

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:59 AM Nick Clifton via Binutils
<binutils@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
>    The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
>    looks like this:
>
>       Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
>       Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release
>
>    It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
>    before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
>    I would prefer to keep them if we can.
>
>    Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
>    to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
>    anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
>    patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.
>
> Cheers
>    Nick
>

Hi Nick,

Can you review my DT_RELR patches?

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-January/119222.html

I'd like to add them to binutils 2.38.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Alan Modra]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 08:20:13AM -0800, H.J. Lu via Binutils wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Can you review my DT_RELR patches?
> 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-January/119222.html

I've looked over them.  I keep asking myself, "Why did HJ have to
reinvent everything rather than reuse existing code used in other
targets?"  And "Why do we need yet another hook?"  All of which will
be a maintenance burden, especially after you retire or quit binutils
work for any other reason.

You'll need to justify design decisions, and not assume other targets
will follow your design.  This sort of thing

+  /* NB: Also enable relaxation to layout sections for DT_RELR.  */
+  if (RELAXATION_ENABLED || link_info.enable_dt_relr)

is just wrong.  There is absolutely no fundamental reason that
bfd_relax_section must handle sizing of the DT_RELR section.  I choose
to not do so on powerpc64.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Jedidiah Thompson]

Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Thanks
________________________________
From: Binutils <binutils-bounces+wej22007=outlook.com@sourceware.org> on behalf of Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: 2.38 branch date approaching

Hi Guys,

   The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
   looks like this:

      Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
      Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release

   It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
   before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
   I would prefer to keep them if we can.

   Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
   to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
   anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
   patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.

Cheers
   Nick

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Jedidiah Thompson]

Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Thanks
________________________________
From: Binutils <binutils-bounces+wej22007=outlook.com@sourceware.org> on behalf of Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: 2.38 branch date approaching

Hi Guys,

   The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
   looks like this:

      Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
      Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release

   It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
   before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
   I would prefer to keep them if we can.

   Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
   to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
   anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
   patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.

Cheers
   Nick

RE: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Jedidiah Thompson]

Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Binutils <binutils-bounces+wej22007=outlook.com@sourceware.org> On Behalf Of Nick Clifton via Binutils
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: 2.38 branch date approaching

Hi Guys,

   The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
   looks like this:

      Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
      Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release

   It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
   before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
   I would prefer to keep them if we can.

   Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
   to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
   anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
   patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.

Cheers
   Nick

RE: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Jedidiah Thompson]

Sorry about the duplicate messages. Outlook doesn't play nice with Pipermail

-----Original Message-----
From: Jedidiah Thompson 
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:36 AM
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: RE: 2.38 branch date approaching

Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Binutils <binutils-bounces+wej22007=outlook.com@sourceware.org> On Behalf Of Nick Clifton via Binutils
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: 2.38 branch date approaching

Hi Guys,

   The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
   looks like this:

      Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
      Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release

   It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
   before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
   I would prefer to keep them if we can.

   Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
   to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
   anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
   patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.

Cheers
   Nick

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:59 AM Nick Clifton via Binutils
<binutils@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
>    The time for the 2.38 release is approaching.  My schedule currently
>    looks like this:
>
>       Sat Jan 22: Create the 2.38 branch
>       Sat Jan 29: Create the 2.38 release
>
>    It is a short time table because I am trying to get the branch out
>    before the end of January.  These dates can slip if necessary, but
>    I would prefer to keep them if we can.
>
>    Therefore please can anyone with new features that they would like
>    to see in the next release expedite their patch submissions, and
>    anyone who is waiting on patch review for their already submitted
>    patches please ping the relevant maintainers and/or me.
>

Hi Nick,

I'd like to fix

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28743

with

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-January/119258.html

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Jeddiah,

> Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL 
> support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Sure - but ... please could you send me a new version of the patch with a couple of changes ?

Specifically:

   * Please could you send the patch as an attachment, not inline.
     (For some reason my email reader keeps on wrapping long lines, which corrupts inline patches)

   * Please could you omit the changes to the gdb sources.
     (You will need separate approval from the gdb folks for that part).

   * Please could you omit the changes to the auto-generated files
     (eg configure, Makefile.in, etc).  I will regenerate the files
     myself.

   * If possible, please could you omit any formatting tweaks.
     eg replacing "# define" with "#define" and so on.

Cheers
   Nick

RE: 2.38 branch date approaching

[Jedidiah Thompson]

I’m not going to be at my computer for another week or so, but as soon as I am, I will send the updated patch.

From: Nick Clifton<mailto:nickc@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 8:44 AM
To: Jedidiah Thompson<mailto:wej22007@outlook.com>; binutils@sourceware.org<mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: 2.38 branch date approaching

Hi Jeddiah,

> Not to spam, but would you please review my aarch64-pe patches? I don't want it added to 2.38, as it doesn't have some important features needed (like relocations and DLL
> support), but it will make it easier for me to work on those features when it gets reviewed.

Sure - but ... please could you send me a new version of the patch with a couple of changes ?

Specifically:

   * Please could you send the patch as an attachment, not inline.
     (For some reason my email reader keeps on wrapping long lines, which corrupts inline patches)

   * Please could you omit the changes to the gdb sources.
     (You will need separate approval from the gdb folks for that part).

   * Please could you omit the changes to the auto-generated files
     (eg configure, Makefile.in, etc).  I will regenerate the files
     myself.

   * If possible, please could you omit any formatting tweaks.
     eg replacing "# define" with "#define" and so on.

Cheers
   Nick