[Bug bootstrap/54419] [4.8 Regression] Compiling libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/random.cc fails on platforms not knowing rdrand

["redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419

--- Comment #57 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-09 16:18:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #55)
> (1) A new patch has been posted at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00466.html to fix a typo in my
> email address.

But not to a list I actually read.

> (2) Jack Howarth does not seem to be around. So if someone with write access
> care about ASAP, he(r)? may commit the last version.

I'll do it today.

> AFAICT nobody has been asking to cross post to libstdc++.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches and
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html "Patches to libstdc++-v3 should be sent to both
this list and gcc-patches."

That is the standard policy, that's true whether or not anyone noticed the
policy wasn't followed or pointed it out. Anyway, I'm asking now. Please follow
the policy in future if you want me to review libstdc++ patches.

> (4) Managing libstdc++ on a specific mailing list made sense when G++ was an
> optional component of GCC. Now that C++, hence libstdc++, is mandatory, I think
> this policy should be revised:
> - the final patch should be posted and approved on gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;

No, it should go to both.  I don't want to subscribe to gcc-patches to review
just the libstdc++ patches, and I doubt everyone subscribed to gcc@gcc.gnu.org
wants to read discussion of e.g. the C++11 standard library components (which
aren't used by the rest of GCC.)

If patches are sent to both lists I can reply-to-all and the approval and
review will be sent to both lists. I see no reason to change that policy.  In
any case, changing policies should be discussed on the gcc list, not in
bugzilla.

> - the libstdc++ maintainers should be more careful: four bootstrap failures
> caused by a single commit is way to much;
> - the libstdc++ maintainers should be more responsive: more than ten days to
> fix a bootstrap failure on primary platforms is way too long.

Myself and Paolo were both travelling for the past week, so we were less
responsive than normal. If the patch had been posted to the right list I would
have reviewed the patch while on holiday, but I didn't even realise there was a
patch to fix it because it wasn't sent to the list I read (I was surprised when
I got back from holiday to find the change hadn't been reverted after the 48
hour countdown was started.)