[Bug other/55376] [asan] libsanitizer/README.gcc must contain the exact steps to do code changes and to port code from upstream

["konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376

--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> 2012-11-18 18:47:19 UTC ---
>> Are all upstream changes considered reviewed and automatically approved for gcc repo? 

all upstream changes are pre- or post- reviewed, so my answer here is "yes".

>> That's not acceptable.  We don't want to have to go through LLVM to fix issues
in GCC, especially for the platforms that LLVM doesn't support, i.e. most of
them.

I've got your point, but please understand mine: if the trees go too much out
of sync we (the asan team) will lose control over one of the copies (gcc). 
It will mean that some one else (not us) will have to work on asan in gcc. 
Maybe that's not bad, but I don't want it. 

Syncing the trees in the presence of difference in the comment headers make the
syncing task a tiny bit more challenging. 
I hope that at some point when we get enough contributions to libsanitizer
from the GCC community, we will be able to unify the headers by saying 
"This is part of LLVM and GCC projects". WDYT?


As I understood from previous e-mails, there are libraries with similar
problems in the gcc tree. What are the solutions there? 

>> Introducing such regressions is acceptable, provided that they can be quickly
fixed by the target maintainers.

It's great that such regressions is acceptable, but if there is an
infrastructure 
that allows us to know about possible regressions before the commit (aka try
bots), I'd like to know.