From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25249 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2004 19:19:16 -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 25229 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 19:19:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.aaronwl.com) (68.228.0.128) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 19:19:13 -0000 Received: from [70.182.14.214] (cdm-70-182-14-214.laft.cox-internet.com [70.182.14.214]) by mail.aaronwl.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9PJJBBQ025883; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:19:11 GMT Message-ID: <417D5207.7080604@aaronwl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:03:00 -0000 From: "Aaron W. LaFramboise" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DJ Delorie CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gp@qnx.com, ericw@evcohs.com Subject: Re: [PING] Windows patches. References: <417AB82F.4030405@aaronwl.com> <200410251858.i9PIw8tQ025887@greed.delorie.com> In-Reply-To: <200410251858.i9PIw8tQ025887@greed.delorie.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg02086.txt.bz2 DJ Delorie wrote: >>The first patch disables building fixincludes for targets where it >>is not needed. This was done previously, but got lost in the >>fixincludes transition to toplevel. It needs a configury >>maintainer. > > Target-specific changes in configury are normally approved by the > target maintainers, not the configury maintainers, as only the target > maintainers know if the change is correct. (The patch was .) This patch affects: alpha*-*-*vms* arm-semi-aof hppa1.1-*-osf* hppa1.1-*-bsd*, i370-*-opened* i[[3456789]]86-*-mingw32* *-*-cygwin* i[[3456789]]86-moss-msdos i[[3456789]]86-*-moss* i[[3456789]]86-*-pe powerpc-*-eabi powerpcle-*-eabi* powerpc-*-rtems* QNX and AVR targets have indicated also that they don't want fixincludes. For these targets, this patch restores the behavior of fixincludes builds before it was moved to toplevel. Does the patch really need to be signed off by all of these maintainers? Unless since fixincludes moved to toplevel one of these targets added fixincludes rules, which is unlikely, there will be no change in functionality , except for shorter build times, and perhaps the difference between a currently broken build and a working build. Aaron W. LaFramboise