From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29400 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 15:37:46 -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 29283 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 15:37:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_HEADERS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: shepard.synsport.net Received: from mail.synsport.com (HELO shepard.synsport.net) (208.69.230.148) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:37:44 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAAC435C7; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:37:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <535FC71E.8070406@marino.st> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:39:00 -0000 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gcc-patches , Ian Lance Taylor , libstdc++ , binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly References: <5352D100.9040108@marino.st> <53541A34.7050908@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <53541A34.7050908@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg01992.txt.bz2 Hi folks, Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for the DragonFly targets? It's a blocker for other patches of mine that have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go in first. Thanks, John On 4/20/2014 21:04, John Marino wrote: > On 4/20/2014 14:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 19 April 2014 20:39, John Marino wrote: >>> Hello GCC developers, >>> >>> For the last few years, I have been maintaining a large set of patches >>> that add support for the DragonFly BSD target and also complete Ada >>> frontend support on all four major BSDs among other things. Before I >>> can submit patches for Ada or testsuite cases, DragonFly must be a >>> recognized, working target. The patches attached here will provide >>> out-of-the-box support for the C, C++, Objective-C and Fortran frontends. >> >> Thanks for the patch - I only have a few general, minor comments. As >> noted at http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html C++ library patches should go >> to the libstdc++ list as well as gcc-patches, so I've CC'd that list >> (original mail and patch are at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01128.html) >> >> Patches should not include generated files such as configure, as the >> diffs don't always apply cleanly and the changes are implied by the >> patches to files such as acinclude.m4 and configure.ac. The >> regenerated versions should of course be committed, and the ChangeLog >> should mention they are regenerated, as you've done. > > Thanks for your advice, Jonathan. > I've updated the patch to remove the two "configure" file patches. I > also removed an errant "-rpath" from the dragonfly.h specs that crept in > from FreeBSD ports. I've attached the updated patch to this email. > >> >> The changelog text should be correctly capitalised and sentences ended >> with a period (e.g. "New target." and "New." not "New target" and >> "new"). The individual ChangeLog entries at >> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/changelog_entries/ >> would generally be used as the commit message, grouped and prefixed by >> the name of the sub-directory: >> > > > I have updated the six entry files at > http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/changelog_entries/ to > conform to this style. I updated the proposed commit message > accordingly: > http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/proposed_commit-msg.txt > > >> >> The libstdc++ changes are OK for trunk if the rest gets approved. > > Thanks! > I see from the critique of another submitted patch that also touches > liberty that I'm supposed to cross-post to gdb and binutils, so I've > cc'd them as well. > > Regards, > John >