* Re: [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case [not found] ` <6a0ccc2-e4ab-c8f0-dffc-cd8f0f1369b@codesourcery.com> @ 2022-11-08 7:12 ` Alan Modra 2023-01-14 8:51 ` Alexandre Oliva 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2022-11-08 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joseph Myers Cc: Tom de Vries, gdb-patches, binutils, gcc, bonzini, neroden, aoliva, Ralf.Wildenhues On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote: > > > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc > > git repository in a timely manner, or > > If a toplevel patch is approved for either repository, I think you should > treat it as approved for the other one without needing separate review. Thanks Joseph, that's how I see it too. Of course with the understanding that binutils-gdb can't be used as a back door way of sneaking in a gcc-specific change. Can I get agreement among the gcc build maintainers that such a policy is acceptable? -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case 2022-11-08 7:12 ` [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case Alan Modra @ 2023-01-14 8:51 ` Alexandre Oliva 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-01-14 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Modra via Gdb-patches Cc: Joseph Myers, Alan Modra, Tom de Vries, binutils, gcc, bonzini, neroden, Ralf.Wildenhues On Nov 8, 2022, Alan Modra via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote: >> >> > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc >> > git repository in a timely manner, or >> >> If a toplevel patch is approved for either repository, I think you should >> treat it as approved for the other one without needing separate review. > Thanks Joseph, that's how I see it too. Of course with the > understanding that binutils-gdb can't be used as a back door way of > sneaking in a gcc-specific change. > Can I get agreement among the gcc build maintainers that such a > policy is acceptable? FTR, II've long assumed that this cooperation in maintaining the top-level build machinery worked both ways already. Reducing divergence is a plus IMHO. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-14 8:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20221020151027.GA1300@delia.home>
[not found] ` <Y2jtVHkvM9ejHwVd@squeak.grove.modra.org>
[not found] ` <6a0ccc2-e4ab-c8f0-dffc-cd8f0f1369b@codesourcery.com>
2022-11-08 7:12 ` [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case Alan Modra
2023-01-14 8:51 ` Alexandre Oliva
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).