From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=q5tH=7P=cs.washington.edu=kmatsui@sourceware.org>
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169F23858C20
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:53:56 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 169F23858C20
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.washington.edu
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cs.washington.edu
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id x33so14638889uaf.12
        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 03:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=cs.washington.edu; s=goo201206; t=1679568835;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date
         :message-id:reply-to;
        bh=o88mG+KtWBKDg6PwCW8l7yJXha1etlRwpizhdAW+8Lk=;
        b=kbMIshPlR3Tg9sJfvMpURT7TmjH8h/qK97zCR8DmP5ecmIh9WFRMO2zczgrEnyNziB
         gzgAL6uSHgL+qTU8bxmmhnFUB44Tef0xYRyo6rIRmtEADAONRlnxnqKvSmBArcEJwWSS
         T6XHXFuN0Bcn4FLhpsmHCzOFCdOjc2oQ3zIG8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679568835;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
         :subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=o88mG+KtWBKDg6PwCW8l7yJXha1etlRwpizhdAW+8Lk=;
        b=0YcxMdbXpsB0yDuOGTJGuin5cOtpaX7Qh428V6g5az9K2tW4PDOut+xGEi4toAeTLN
         1J9V3cDzReqcYxgXmyhV36NtmcnMte24DYjt+2/uvC2aLWcM35ab6ET0uHcIBsLUfcyR
         g2n176wqEHk+LhoSE3mbGr5paM47mvwulxZ/zewrXx/z4S9g0Zcda9c/4Ri99a+K8ghE
         hnxWbWdwUNc4x/9toPVYfE+BuRgxHwewXMGX7XsllTjwR48fbqhweD2oHv9con0iCZPb
         joAFOMLkG3jhCFD/8ijmL23+eEU81mIt+50xuRETQpE+cI4wOTsX6YIhrzvfCxFx7e/y
         B0YA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eAUrvQoD6tRrs8/BdGyhvXTjc7gfjKNPwJkGu5Y/FcHx6WQBYX
	aAdPeQXVQapLYBSNSXvSiS2uPgZwpYCpaD8SBcr8tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a6imQPXXKfOueffNwzwfw2BfjSfTjjj8HjlmS7P3DHeGuCMXdhWMJIuxrQLP0UtzHmD1ecO8P0wGm5JXujUA0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6130:80c:b0:68b:90f4:1d8c with SMTP id
 bn12-20020a056130080c00b0068b90f41d8cmr6134857uab.1.1679568835363; Thu, 23
 Mar 2023 03:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230323020458.54515-1-kmatsui@cs.washington.edu>
 <CACb0b4mEfEa1g02YCuGemxC6MndhmR24dAsp8_t=7jExAexi=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAML+3pW1CwxT2XpoUWh2uCtAujACmnYDor3-ARfAhZSoKLxomg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFk2RUYFOXCNusO+zyUmBqCbHScVXdQ2Dswrw4LTwPNe6fWYUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFk2RUYFOXCNusO+zyUmBqCbHScVXdQ2Dswrw4LTwPNe6fWYUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ken Matsui <kmatsui@cs.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 03:53:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAML+3pXu=Kv7mupVZott9c_pnFQN-0aH-Xg9_5NS-rHkX1AAiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: use __bool_constant instead of integral_constant
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:46=E2=80=AFAM Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 at 12:18, Ken Matsui via Libstdc++
> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you so much for your review!
> >
> > This is my first time contributing to GCC, so I do not have a GCC
> > copyright assignment. I googled those two ways, but I am still
> > confused... Is it correct that the DCO sign-off has been getting more
> > common recently? If so, I will put the sign-off into all my patches. I
> > would prefer to choose the more common and lightweight way.
>
> DCO sign-off is indeed more light-weight, and sure, it's becoming more co=
mmon
> since it's relatively new as an option.

Thank you!

To add a DCO sign-off, do I need to bump up the subject line to [PATCH v2]?