From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-442001-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 53006 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2016 19:25:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 52984 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2016 19:25:47 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*RU:209.85.161.196, Hx-spam-relays-external:209.85.161.196, adequate
X-HELO: mail-yw0-f196.google.com
Received: from mail-yw0-f196.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f196.google.com) (209.85.161.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:25:36 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f196.google.com with SMTP id s68so20959029ywg.0        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:25:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from         :date:message-id:subject:to:cc;        bh=6lmeyudDLn0KGp+rLjoyPFZl2qxASgBXtCdobH2OZ00=;        b=PlS/7pdnrNRbUhNhe5hKNvBxPgSMX3Rr2G/RFoUJ288H7pQqrPz8WWp8iiaVvQLieW         OQpin/IwBHACpxDx4dKKDKRJoztrWnsaJcW5p7CPfCni3QELzJQBlgFAotXFqRI/diyd         n6Q8lMCyTO3zIIDszTZCvW9BqWDKvi5qxTXYItcSCgnMbnQuDPFaVC/n/MZZPvve2mE4         H7LSkBXuBBygtn2oeaaZCZLuexiYzPTSpMbZdEzut/QC0CI+7MBvo48ZVFNcrkP8A1sm         5CjdZMD7MA/MF85ZPsKYwCtTxcAonTk/AW56xNS4doSuAODrPFheE0NG+/bypwyWkNLn         9vfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02/oAYd8cSgaXBdp2hin4x08Ya4OAKM7JWd6VILKj0A+BggROo/lHmN3CCrk8LPIiT3EfqJG6RdOAlLgw==
X-Received: by 10.13.205.4 with SMTP id p4mr1306891ywd.337.1479497135346; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:25:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.161.130 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <338ADAEA-837C-4935-9222-DDB94363D3F2@comcast.net>
References: <ydd7f8awce3.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <5D0F34A7-12A8-4DEC-915A-4BE37CFD76A1@comcast.net> <CAKRnqNJvcs-Wq4z9DLb=VxZOE4TrDBY2g2KLYT=QZrfbNz0nBg@mail.gmail.com> <yddvavlkqwt.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <338ADAEA-837C-4935-9222-DDB94363D3F2@comcast.net>
From: Bruce Korb <bkorb@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAKRnqN+N9jvVC5mwKaavFzx4ceYjP4SKdrwFk+kdmjq--7ojeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [fixincludes] Fix macOS 10.12 <AvailabilityInternal.h> and <os/trace.h> (PR sanitizer/78267)
To: Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>
Cc: Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg01987.txt.bz2

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 2:45 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>> So the current suggestion is to combine my fixincludes patch and Jack's
>> patch to disable <os/trace.h> use if !__BLOCKS__.
>
>> I guess this is ok for mainline now to restore bootstrap?
>
> I think we are down to everyone likes this, Ok.  The big question is, does this need a back port?

My thinking on that subject is that since include fixes do not directly affect
the compiler and, instead, facilitate its use on various platforms, it
is therefore
reasonably safe to back port.  Especially if adequate guards (selection tests)
are included in the fix to prevent it from taking action on the wrong files.
But I also think it is really a "steering committee" decision.

For me, I think it is safe enough.