From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8175 invoked by alias); 9 May 2011 16:49:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 8163 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2011 16:49:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:48:50 +0000 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so4879582wwb.12 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 09:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.196.65 with SMTP id ef1mr7395849wbb.23.1304959729103; Mon, 09 May 2011 09:48:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.201.198 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110404181738.52D661909EB@elbrus2.mtv.corp.google.com> <4D9A4BA3.6000607@ubuntu.com> <4DC81276.8040201@gnu.org> From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] make default linker --hash-style configurable option To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , Matthias Klose , gcc-patches@sourceware.org, satorux@google.com, iant@google.com, aoliva@redhat.com, dj@redhat.com, neroden@gcc.gnu.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:45, Joseph S. Myers wro= te: > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: >> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html >> > >> > CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers. >> >> None of the build system maintainers can approve gcc.c changes. =A0And t= hose can >> be approved only by either a global reviewer, or by Joseph. That's why I >> haven't replied anything up to now. > > I'm thinking of it as a build-system patch with a driver bit - where build > system maintainers need to decide the general principle of the > desirability of the feature and what all of the implementation outside > gcc.c should look like, before it makes sense to review the details of the > gcc.c bit. Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather from the thread that you are fine with that as well. Paolo