From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55FE13858D20 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:58:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 55FE13858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02C933EA4; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from naga.localdomain (188-23-1-149.adsl.highway.telekom.at [188.23.1.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C544133E92; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:58:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 12:58:02 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Tobias Burnus cc: gcc-patches , Andrew Stubbs , Tom de Vries , Thomas Schwinge , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Li=A8ka?= , Matthias Klose Subject: Re: [Patch] install.texi: Bump newlib version for nvptx + gcn In-Reply-To: <11d635d0-9798-5344-934b-969cb01974ba@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <11d635d0-9798-5344-934b-969cb01974ba@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323328-1248657052-1674301923=:7170" X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.10 on 209.68.5.143 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1248657052-1674301923=:7170 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Tobias Burnus wrote: > A new newlib version has been realized yesterday: newlib-4.3.0 (yearly > snapshot) : > Comments? Suggestions? – If there are none, I intent to commit the patch > as obvious. Is it maybe a little tough to bump the minimal requirement to something only released yesterday? Or is this not an issue looking at the use cases? (Genuine question. Maybe nothing to worry at all.) And, this predates your patch, in one instance we refer to Newlib (upper case9, in the other to newlib (lower case). Would it make sense to converge to one? Not an objection to the patch - you are the expert - just two (naive) questions. Gerald --8323328-1248657052-1674301923=:7170--