From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2176 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 19:56:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2117 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 19:56:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 19:56:42 -0000 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A10800075; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:56:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from fche@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBHJuU626737; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:56:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:56:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: DJ Delorie Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com, sid@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations Message-ID: <20021217145629.C24193@redhat.com> References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4> <20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4> <200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com> <15871.31192.305439.813418@casey.transmeta.com> <200212171947.gBHJl3P23665@envy.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Izn7cH1Com+I3R9J" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200212171947.gBHJl3P23665@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:47:03PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 --Izn7cH1Com+I3R9J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1188 Hi - On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:47:03PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks. > > [...] >=20 > Because cgen feeds binutils, gdb, and sid. Which one of those has the > port maintainers responsible for cgen?=20=20 Assuming you're referring to cgen model files as opposed to cgen scheme sources, such port maintainers can work this out amongst themselves. I see no need for formal process to handle this (hypothetical?) problem. > What happens if a binutils > maintainer changes cgen, and unknowingly breaks sid or gdb? Then as soon as the breakage is identified, the person causing the breakage will have to negotiate to assure some sort of correction. No big deal. > [...] > But, let me make the formal request anyway. gdb and sid cc'd. >=20 > Cgen folks (and others)... would it be acceptable to change the cgen > approval rules to allow people who could otherwise approve > port-specific patches in binutils, gdb, or sid, to be allowed to > approve port-specific changes in cgen as well? In line with dje's hints, I have no objection, as long as people stand behind their patch if unforseen negative effects result. - FChE --Izn7cH1Com+I3R9J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/4FtVZbdDOm/ZT0RAs3LAJwNjAIGozak37BtS7qCiV9uu7WufwCeMgrA G/a//EHzRDoseVaPiehccgA= =BxZX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Izn7cH1Com+I3R9J--