From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92953 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2015 01:21:28 -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 92944 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2015 01:21:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:21:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DF4F461C8; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-138.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.138]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9T1LOwD023651; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:21:24 -0400 Subject: Re: PING: [PATCH] PR target/67215: -fno-plt needs improvements for x86 To: "H.J. Lu" References: <562F5E11.1090503@redhat.com> <562F739F.2090000@foss.arm.com> <562F818A.90003@foss.arm.com> <562F8B6F.7060605@foss.arm.com> <562F9B4C.8000607@foss.arm.com> <562FB812.7050601@redhat.com> <563166EC.8050903@redhat.com> <56317236.80602@redhat.com> Cc: Jeff Law , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jiong Wang , GCC Patches , Marcus Shawcroft From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <56317493.8010400@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg03124.txt.bz2 On 10/29/2015 02:14 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 10/29/2015 02:10 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> So I'll ask again, why did you commit a patch which you clearly knew did >>>> not >>>> meet the conditions Bernd set forth for approval? >>> >>> >>> I believed that aarch64 backend didn't properly handle -fno-plt, >>> which shouldn't block my patch. Actually this is even worse than I thought because it sounds like you're saying you knowingly checked something in while being aware it would break another port. >> This really isn't how the rules work, and you've been around long enough to >> know it. >> > > Sometimes It seems that it is the only way to get attention from the > community. BTW, my patch was submitted in August. At the point where you committed the patch you already had attention and the patch was being discussed. Bernd