From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3880 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2004 12:15:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3868 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2004 12:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2004 12:15:23 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BiBKd-0001bs-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:15:23 +0200 Received: from paride.rett.polimi.it ([131.175.65.135]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:15:23 +0200 Received: from bonzini by paride.rett.polimi.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:15:23 +0200 To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: allow preferring linking against dynamic libgcc over static one Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <40EBEA27.2040909@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: paride.rett.polimi.it User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) In-Reply-To: X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00593.txt.bz2 > This is puzzling. In the very same place there is use of > USE_LD_AS_NEEDED, introduced in April. Why would the rules you try to > enforce here not hold for that one (it's neither documented nor being > checked for at runtime)? Jan Probably because this slipped through. Joseph is probably one of the most thorough people in the GCC developer community, but he cannot be always there reminding people to update the docs. I think you should go ahead with target macros, since having a hook seems overkill when the target macro is actually going to return a constant everywhere. Also, though you're indeed breaking up the patch which makes it much easier to review, it will probably be easier for you as well if you submit only 2 or 3 of them at a single time. Keep ten CVS checkouts, each with a single patch (apart from maybe the final NetWare target tree, which will be "your" local tree), and submit two cvs diff's at a time. When they are okayed and committed (you don't have CVS write access yet, have you?), update all the trees. It is much easier to track what has been reviewed and what not, both for you and for the GCC maintainers. Good luck, Paolo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4279 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2004 12:15:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4257 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2004 12:15:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.polimi.it) (131.175.12.67) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2004 12:15:28 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (paride.rett.polimi.it [131.175.65.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.polimi.it (Switch-3.0.5/Switch-3.0.0) with ESMTP id i67CFLpT028872; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:15:22 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <40EBEA27.2040909@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:35:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches To: Jan Beulich CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: allow preferring linking against dynamic libgcc over static one References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 4.6.0.99824, Antispam-Core: 4.6.1.104326, Antispam-Data: 2004.7.6.106122 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=%%XPROB%%IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0, X_ACCEPT_LANG 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __REFERENCES 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __EVITE_CTYPE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __UNUSABLE_MSGID 0, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, REFERENCES 0.000, IN_REP_TO 0, USER_AGENT 0.000' X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00594.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040707123500.JXNXrQWVw7XL7JvwApbJIkOcMEGMjAjsd4wken-vP0w@z> > This is puzzling. In the very same place there is use of > USE_LD_AS_NEEDED, introduced in April. Why would the rules you try to > enforce here not hold for that one (it's neither documented nor being > checked for at runtime)? Jan Probably because this slipped through. Joseph is probably one of the most thorough people in the GCC developer community, but he cannot be always there reminding people to update the docs. I think you should go ahead with target macros, since having a hook seems overkill when the target macro is actually going to return a constant everywhere. Also, though you're indeed breaking up the patch which makes it much easier to review, it will probably be easier for you as well if you submit only 2 or 3 of them at a single time. Keep ten CVS checkouts, each with a single patch (apart from maybe the final NetWare target tree, which will be "your" local tree), and submit two cvs diff's at a time. When they are okayed and committed (you don't have CVS write access yet, have you?), update all the trees. It is much easier to track what has been reviewed and what not, both for you and for the GCC maintainers. Good luck, Paolo