* 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).