From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3126 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2012 07:23:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 962 invoked by uid 48); 20 Nov 2012 07:23:28 -0000 From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/55376] [asan] libsanitizer/README.gcc must contain the exact steps to do code changes and to port code from upstream Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:23:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01881.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-20 07:23:26 UTC --- > === > All changes in this directory should be pre-approved by one of the maintainers. > Trivial and urgent fixes (portability, build fixes, etc) may go directly to the > gcc tree. All non-trivial changes, functionality improvements, etc should go > through the upstream tree first and then be merged back to the gcc tree. > > === The first sentence is odd, since all changes must already be approved as per the GCC rules, but the rest is reasonable. And it's GCC, not gcc, like LLVM. > I also want to have a semi-automated way to pull the updates from upstream. > What is the preferred scripting language? Is bash (python, perl) ok? If it runs on your machine, why asking? > When pulling a new update, what text do we expect in the ChangeLog? > Is the upstream SVN revision enough, or we want to copy all commit messages? Ideally a script could parse the commit messages on the LLVM side and yield a GNU-compatible ChangeLog; the granularity could be the file instead of the function. That being said, I don't know what LLVM commit messages look like, so this might not really work.