public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 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).