From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libffi-discuss-return-2301-listarch-libffi-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 33215 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2016 08:17:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libffi-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libffi-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 33187 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2016 08:17:50 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Ian, Lance
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:17:40 +0000
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DFF4C073D4A;	Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:17:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-116-26.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.26])	by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9S8HaBr004153;	Fri, 28 Oct 2016 04:17:37 -0400
Subject: Re: libffi maintenance within GCC?
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
References: <48a433ca-9f6d-3b5b-9485-64261d812b66@ubuntu.com> <CACxje5-WNcJnWkfK4QyOf0=gsDySxmJ6vU=HnxdjMertyDjMfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOQZ8wU02wBiP3K6ekW73SgDFCxQzBJ_0GggnypZn9bJ1ZXbA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com>, gcc Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,        "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <bc656284-1027-c68e-2656-6195fccca14c@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:17:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOQZ8wU02wBiP3K6ekW73SgDFCxQzBJ_0GggnypZn9bJ1ZXbA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2

On 28/10/16 04:03, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> wrote:
>> Is it still important that libffi be included in the GCC tree?
> 
> [ Replying again as last message was bounced as HTML--sorry for the
> duplication.]
> 
> libffi is used by libgo, for much the same reason as it was used by
> libjava, so it needs to come from somewhere.

It has been very convenient for GCC port maintainers to be able to
commit their patches to the GCC tree.

Andrew.