Re: Unreviewed build patches

[Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

>> 	[build] More --enable-threads cleanup
>>         http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00059.html
>> 
>> This might well be obvious.
>
> Also, we usually leave those up to the target maintainers, since
> they're target specific.  But if it's just a correlation between the

True, but finding maintainers for obsolete/removed ports might be
difficult :-)

> script and a list of source file options, go for it.

I did, thanks.

>> Besides, it would be helpful if a build maintainer could have a look at
>> 
>> 	[build] Move Solaris 2 startup files to toplevel libgcc
>>         http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00098.html
>> 
>> either to state that I don't need approval or to make suggestings for
>> improvements.  This is not yet the final patch, but the remainder is
>> tuning.
>
> We normally let target maintainers manage anything in the build that's
> target-specific.  However, you've mixed in target patches with

I know and usually act on that rule.  I wasn't asking so much for
approval but rather for suggestions for the build side of things.

> target-independent patches.  I have no problem with you checking in
> your own target changes, but if you could split out the rest for
> review, it would make it easier on us.

I can try if the build maintainers need that.  So far, I can only see
use of the new generic libgcc/config/t-crtfm on sparc targets other
than Solaris, and $< instead of pathnames in libgcc/config/i386/t-crtfm,
gld detection and substitution of cpu_type.

> Also, mention if you tested it on any ix86 non-solaris platform
> (linux, bsd, etc).

I didn't since apart from the t-crtfm stuff (which has been tested on
Solaris already), there's nothing that could affect them.

Thanks.
        Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University