From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26086 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2010 15:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 26076 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2010 15:33:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pv0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-pv0-f175.google.com) (74.125.83.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:33:04 +0000 Received: by pvd12 with SMTP id 12so210002pvd.20 for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:33:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.212.194 with SMTP id gt2mr4714967icb.522.1289316781901; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.176.193 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:33:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Build system: Use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE From: David Edelsohn To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Richard Guenther , Paolo Bonzini , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00909.txt.bz2 Ian, With Paolo's patch, my bootstrap has progressed into stage 2. Hopefully the Flex-generated file is the only case where header files are included in the wrong order. Paolo's patch definitely is a step in the right direction. Thanks, David On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > David Edelsohn writes: > >> Also, given this problem, I want to try a meta-experiment: At the GCC >> Summit, some Google developers proposed that any patch causing >> breakage immediately be reverted, following the practice at Google. >> Jakub mentioned on IRC that reverting the patch will break bootstrap >> on i386-linux and other targets. =A0So Googlers, how do you want to >> proceed and demonstrate your own proposed policy in action? > > Although I was regularly interrupted during that discussion at the > summit, I tried a few times to say that in my opinion the policy would > only apply during the first few days after the patch was committed. > It's been a week for this patch now. > > Also there is a conflict in that this patch fixed bootstrap for > i686-unknown-linux-gnu, a primary platform, whereas you are telling us > that it breaks bootstrap for powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 a secondary > platform. =A0The right step would have been to revert the earlier > simple_object patch, rather than this one. > > So on both those grounds I'm not sure an immediate reversion of this > patch is appropriate now, but I will do it if you ask again. > > > Another approach would be the appended patch. =A0Does it fix the problem? > Build maintainers, any opinion? > > Ian > > >