Re: [PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads (ada/68169)

[Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>]

On December 4, 2015 12:44:57 PM CST, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 12/02/2015 03:23 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
>> Am Wednesday 02 December 2015, 08:13:20 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>>>
>>> On December 2, 2015 2:14:22 AM EST, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2015 12:56 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
>>>>> Am Monday 30 November 2015, 16:19:30 schrieb Jeff Law:
>>>>>> On 11/30/2015 03:06 PM, Jan Sommer wrote:
>>>>>>> Could someone with write access please commit the patch?
>>>>>>> The paperwork with the FSF has gone through. If something
>>>>>>> else is
>>>> missing, please tell me.
>>>>>>> I won't be available next week.
>>>>>> I'm not sure what you built your patches again, but I can't
>>>>>> apply
>>>> them
>>>>>> to the trunk.  Can you resend a patch as a diff against the
>>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Often I can fix things by hand, but this is Ada and I'd be
>>>>>> much more likely to botch something.
>>>>>
>>>>> I updated the patches again. They should now fit with the heads
>>>>> of
>>>> the respective branches again.
>>>>> Maybe the Changelog will be out of synch again. The patches are
>>>>> for the following branches: ada-68169_4.9.diff   -->
>>>>> gcc-4_9-branch ada-68169_5.x.diff  -->   gcc-5-branch
>>>>> ada-68169_trunk.diff --> trunk
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if they apply this time. I used svn diff to create
>>>>> them
>>>> and used patch -p0 to test if they apply locally. THanks.  I've
>>>> committed this to the trunk based on Joel's comments.
>>>>
>>>> The gcc-5 branch is frozen for the upcoming release and gcc-4.9
>>>> is regression/doc fixes only.  It'll be up to the release
>>>> managers whether
>>>>
>>>> or not to backport to those branches.
>>>
>>> Thanks Jeff.
>>>
>>> I would consider this a regression. RTEMS changed the
>>> pthread_attr_t when we added thread affinity and updating Ada to
>>> match slipped through. We knew it needed attention for SMP but
>>> missed this critical piece to keep it working.
>OK.  I wasn't aware of this.  Given this note, I went ahead and 
>committed the change to the gcc-5 and gcc-4.9 branches.  However, it 
>missed the deadline for 5.3, which went out earlier this morning.

Thanks. 

Releases and freezes happen independent of bugs being discovered and fixed. We all just have to keep plugging on and patching.  We just like to build tools with released versions and as few patches as possible. That's all we can strive for.

>Jeff

--joel