From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57222 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2015 01:10:18 -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 57097 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2015 01:10:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f45.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f45.google.com) (209.85.218.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:10:10 +0000 Received: by oifu63 with SMTP id u63so15552047oif.2 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.173.142 with SMTP id w136mr33480767oie.128.1446081008636; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.72.3 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <563166EC.8050903@redhat.com> 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> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PING: [PATCH] PR target/67215: -fno-plt needs improvements for x86 From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jeff Law Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan , Jiong Wang , Bernd Schmidt , GCC Patches , Marcus Shawcroft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg03121.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/27/2015 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> >>>> HJ, Thanks for committing the change even when we were discussing the >>>> change >>> >>> >>> This is what I'm primarily concerned about. >>> >>> Bernd's message was pretty clear in my mind: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02861.html >>> >>> It was conditional approval based on no other target using -fno-plt and >>> agreement from the x86 maintainers. >>> >>> HJ replied that aarch64 uses -fno-plt: >>> >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02865.html >>> >>> >>> And then apparently HJ committed the patch. >>> >>> >>> commit 47b727e5ec3f6f4f0a30ee899adce80185ad6999 >>> Author: hjl >>> Date: Tue Oct 27 14:29:31 2015 +0000 >>> >>> When reviewers conditionally approve a patch, the conditions need to be >>> satisfied before a patch can be committed. Ignoring the conditions seems >>> like a significant breech of trust to me. >>> >>> HJ, why did you commit the patch given it didn't meet the conditions >>> Bernd >>> set forth for approval? >>> >> >> Sorry for the trouble my patch caused. The bug is in aarch64 backend. > > You didn't answer my question. > > I asked why you committed a patch given it didn't meet the conditions Bernd > set forth for approval. I didn't ask anything about the bug itself. > > 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. -- H.J.