From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:43]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67DE385B834 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:45:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B67DE385B834 Received: from resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.116]) by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id IyVDjukLlHlRVIzQ2jrDHi; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:45:54 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2601:640:4000:fcbb:98f7:6c5d:9455:6b8d] ([IPv6:2601:640:4000:fcbb:98f7:6c5d:9455:6b8d]) by resomta-ch2-20v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id IzPvjFxhKTUlPIzPzjiNxq; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:45:53 +0000 X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] libffi/test: Fix compilation for build sysroot From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:45:46 -0700 Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Jeffrey Law , GCC Patches , Julian Brown , Tobias Burnus , Thomas Schwinge , Chung-Lin Tang , Ian Lance Taylor , libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7A59EACC-C414-4278-8BEC-F0D02792E62F@comcast.net> References: <805572B0-892A-4811-8CB3-762023C8703F@comcast.net> To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libffi-discuss mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:45:56 -0000 On Mar 26, 2020, at 3:00 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >=20 > I have actually considered extracting the bits already, but I = hesitated=20 > putting that forward that as having looked at the part that we require = I=20 > have thought it to be very messy: Yeah, sometimes it's like that. I glanced at the work, if you think = it's a step forward, I'd support importing it, my take, import from = upstream isn't a bad way to go. > So I am in favour of retaining the mechanism rather than using my = earlier=20 > proposal, however I'm in two minds as to how to proceed. Integrating = the=20 > change as it is will make us having clutter left in the tree after = `make=20 > distclean', but we can do it right away. I'd support this. distclean is one rm -rf away from being clean enough. = I'd not let that gate or hold up the import. If there is work that we want that's more to do with in tree building = and testing (sys root fun, multilibs), while not ideal, we can deviate = from upstream to support that. Though, if there is a way to naturally = support that, that upstream can accept, that'd be better.=