Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

["Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch> wrote:
> > Hi Kaveh,
> >
> >
> >  Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> >
> >  >> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> >  >>          Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
> >  >>
> >  >>      * inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
> >  >>      * tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
> >  >>      * fixincl.x: Regenerate.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  > Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
> >  > fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
> >  > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
> >  >
> >
> >  I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already
> >  finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.
>
> The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
> serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch itself.
> It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition issues.
> Richard.

Richard,

I believe this bugfix qualifies for gcc-4.1.

It's a wrong code bug.  It's a regression (if you count that moving from
solaris10 to solaris11 you'll see a new bug).  The restriction
"regressions on the branch itself" is not followed *at all by anyone*.
Just look at the 4.1 ChangeLog, so please let's not apply that
qualification to just this one patch.

I agree it's a corner case, but whether it's "serious" to a user depends
on whether their code relies on the correct behavior of this feature.  So
IMHO we should balance the relative frequency of this case vs. the
invasiveness of the fix.

Regarding that, the patch is small & simple, done by fixincludes (i.e. not
a behavior change to cc1), it's limited to solaris11 in just one header
file on that OS.

And the fixincludes maintainer has expressed his policy regarding
backports is that "all active branches" should get all fixes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
We generally give some leeway to maintainers within their area of
expertise.

Weighing all this together, I'd like you to please reconsider.

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu