From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18580 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 17:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 18553 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2007 17:20:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:20:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 9468 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2007 17:20:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Aug 2007 17:20:11 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IQRD8-0004rE-0C; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:20:10 +0000 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:30:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Danny Backx cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Debug info path remapping In-Reply-To: <1183664360.1075.239.camel@dannypc> Message-ID: References: <1183664360.1075.239.camel@dannypc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2007-08/txt/msg02110.txt.bz2 On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Danny Backx wrote: > This looks remarkably like a patch I sent in on May 16 to do something > similar for gcov. The reason for my patch is cross-compilers which > target Windows CE systems, on which the original source path doesn't > exist. > > Maybe the two patches should be considered together. > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01087.html for mine. I think you need to keep pinging your patch until it gets reviewed. It's also around the size where you may need to get the FSF copyright assignment in first before it can be committed. The new option needs documenting in invoke.texi as well as gcov.texi. "xstrdup(arg)" should have a space: "xstrdup (arg)". As you noted in your original submission, I think it would also be a good idea to separate the Windows CE patch to libgcov.c from the rest of the patch so they can be considered separately; it helps for patches to be submitted in minimal indivisible units. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com