This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Paolo cross RTEMS build patch review
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Laurent GUERBY <laurent at guerby dot net>
- Cc: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:34:30 -0800
- Subject: Re: Paolo cross RTEMS build patch review
- References: <437D9558.10305@codesourcery.com> <437E442D.1090807@OARcorp.com> <1132350916.6774.1813.camel@pc.site> <437E51A6.907@OARcorp.com> <437E5BC2.20800@lu.unisi.ch> <43825C9E.3010108@OARcorp.com> <43829016.7020403@codesourcery.com> <1133437840.31007.265.camel@pc.site>
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Hi Mark, Paolo posted his patch to fix the cross RTEMS build process on
> november 19th, after two pings and 11 days it hasn't been reviewed.
>
> Patch URL:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01404.html
On November 21st I wrote:
> I will review the patch, if it comes to that, but I'd much prefer that a
> build system maintainer take a look. If that doesn't happen, within a
> few days, let me know.
It's certainly been a few days. However, I now realize that this is not
only code I don't know very well -- it may not even be code I have write
privileges for, as its shared with src.
However, I like this patch -- the `if [ -r ... ` hack has always seemed
very unfortunate to me. Certainly, when I start building a toolchain, I
know which bison I want to use (in-tree, installed, etc.), and the logic
we have presently seems very fragile.
So, if I can approve this patch, I've now done so. I've copied DJ, so
that he can overrule me.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304