From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82374 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2015 09:40:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 82347 invoked by uid 89); 3 Sep 2015 09:40:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com Received: from fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:40:21 +0000 Received: from arm.com (e107456-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.14]) by cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t839eDM9029164; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:40:14 +0100 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:40:00 -0000 From: James Greenhalgh To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: FX , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Marcus Shawcroft , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [Patch] Add to the libgfortran/newlib bodge to "detect" ftruncate support in ARM/AArch64/SH Message-ID: <20150903094013.GA7919@arm.com> References: <20150821100546.GA15842@e107456-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1440511998-15345-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com> <4DDC9F51-0684-40FF-A67E-ADEF0F3178EB@gmail.com> <20150828094031.GA40378@arm.com> <20150828151706.GA5933@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00229.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 02:46:26PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > (Pruned the CC list a bit as lists are included anyway) > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:40:31AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 03:44:05PM +0100, FX wrote: > > > > > 2015-08-25 James Greenhalgh > > > > > > > > > > * configure.ac: Auto-detect newlib function support unless we > > > > > know there are issues when configuring for a host. > > > > > * configure: Regenerate. > > > > > > > > Thanks for CC?ing the fortran list. > > > > > > > > Given that this is newlib-specific code, even though it?s in libgfortran > > > > configury, you should decide and commit what?s best. I don?t think we have > > > > any newlib expert in the Fortran maintainers. > > > > > > > > Wait for 48 hours to see if anyone else objects, though. > > > > > > OK, it has been 48 hours and I haven't seen any objections. The newlib > > > patch has now been committed. > > > > > > I agree with Marcus' suggestion that we put the more comprehensive patch > > > (which requires the newlib fix) on trunk and my original patch (which does > > > not) on the release branches. > > > > > > I'll go ahead with that later today. > > > > Now in place on trunk (r227301), gcc-5-branch (r227302) and gcc-4_9-branch > > (r227304). > > > > Give me a shout if you see issues in your build systems. > > Since you asked: I saw a build failure for cris-elf matching the > missing-kill-declaration issue, and I don't like much having to > take manual steps force a new newlib version. It isn't being > automatically updated because there are regressions in my gcc > test-suite results. I guess autodetecting the kill-declaration > issue in libgfortran is unnecessary complicated, in presence of > a fixed newlib trunk. All in all, I appreciate you don't force > a new newlib on release branches. Hi, I could postpone the pain until after the release of GCC 6, by that point the newlib change will have a little longer to make it in to people's trees. On the other hand, this seems like the best way to fix the issue, and we are probably as well to do it now while we are still sitting in stage 1. I don't want to cause you too much inconvenience, so if you'd like, I can revert the more comprehensive patch from trunk for now. I would be very keen to push it again, either late in GCC 6 development, or soon after the opening of GCC 7. Otherwise, if you're happy enough with the fix staying in place, I'll just leave it. Sorry to have caused you any issues. James