From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20815 invoked by alias); 19 May 2012 05:14:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 20797 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2012 05:14:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from toast.topped-with-meat.com (HELO topped-with-meat.com) (204.197.218.159) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 May 2012 05:14:10 +0000 Received: by topped-with-meat.com (Postfix, from userid 5281) id CE5002C083; Fri, 18 May 2012 22:14:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: David Miller Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: foo.s In-Reply-To: David Miller's message of Saturday, 19 May 2012 00:38:52 -0400 <20120519.003852.1167279910667363123.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120519.003852.1167279910667363123.davem@davemloft.net> Message-Id: <20120519051409.CE5002C083@topped-with-meat.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 05:14:00 -0000 X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=e8d9udV/ c=1 sm=1 a=Z6MIti7PxpgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=hOe2yjtxAAAA:8 a=14OXPxybAAAA:8 a=fRVIfDyaQcKJycIwQ28A:9 a=1tOmbSGQzUYhD0eJfg8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 > It looks like only Alpha and HPPA have foo.s files any longer. Then libc-ports is the place that needs to hear the request (CC'd). > I did a quick scan over them in the glibc-ports tree and I see no > reason why changing them all over to foo.S would break things. I can't imagine how it would. (Actually I can, if there are foo.s files using identifiers that $(compile-command.S) predefines. But it doesn't seem inordinately likely--who would be as foolish as i686?) > Could someone do that? If the respective port maintainers don't respond very quickly, then it's very reasonable to do and post your own renaming changes (just one big one for each machine). If they don't all respond to that posting within a few days, then it's reasonable in a case like this to commit it yourself even without basic build-testing just on the approval of a general maintainer like me and just leave it to the (thoroughly forewarned) port maintainer to fix up any fallout. > Then I could commit the change to remove support for *.s files and > thus the overhead of the resulting sysdep prefix rules. As a matter of policy when only two less-often-maintained machines are affected, it's acceptable to make the request, wait a tiny grace period, and then just break them so they have to do the updates themselves. But in a case like this where you surely can do a blind renaming fine without knowing anything about the particular machine, it's friendly to offer the legwork yourself as outlined above. When you do this, be sure to scour all the corners of all the makefile fragments and ancillary scripts to excise every .s mention. I somehow feel obliged to think that there will be more of them than one might think. Thanks, Roland