This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Hurd port for gcc go PATCH 1-4(23)
- From: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at gnu dot org>
- To: Svante Signell <svante dot signell at gmail dot com>
- Cc: bug-hurd <bug-hurd at gnu dot org>, Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:22:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: Hurd port for gcc go PATCH 1-4(23)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20161126231752.GH2658@var.home> <1480264432.24382.154.camel@gmail.com> <20161127170215.GC8854@var.home> <1480267037.24382.168.camel@gmail.com>
Svante Signell, on Sun 27 Nov 2016 18:17:17 +0100, wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 18:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > But as you wish, an updated patch is attached.
> >
> > _Bool
> > Continued (uint32_t *w)
> > {
> > +#ifndef WCONTINUED
> > + *w = 0;
> > + return 0;
> > +#else
> > return WIFCONTINUED (*w) != 0;
> > +#endif
> > }
> >
> > Err, recheck the semantic of WCONTINUED again, it doesn't modify its
> > parameter, it just tests its value.
> >
> > Do as I said, just return 0.
>
> No I can't the compiler complains about an unused variable. Maybe
> adding an __attribute__((unused)) to the function header?
For instance. See how it is done in the rest of the code.
> > > This is for upstream to decide.
> >
> > I'm just afraid they'd just frown on the code submission and not take
> > the time to explain how they want it to look like if we don't raise
> > the
> > discussion ourselves.
> >
>
> Should we propose these changes upstream? Or do you mean something
> else?
I mean proposing explicitly to upstream, yes, so they don't have to
take the time to explain.
> > Then ask upstream how they think it can and should be done.
>
> Upstream would be Ian Lance Taylor, right?
I don't know.
> > > > > -CLEANFILES = *.go *.gox goc2c *.c s-version libgo.sum
> > > > > libgo.log
> > > > > +CLEANFILES = *.go *.gox goc2c *.c s-* libgo.sum libgo.log
> > > >
> > > > This seems unrelated?
> > > >
> > > No, this is not unrelated: With this patch you can
> > > make -C build/i686-gnu/libgo clean
> > > make -C build/i686-gnu/libgo
> > > to rebuild libgo. Otherwise libcalls.go is not regenerated,
> > > mksysinfo.sh is not run etc.
> >
> > That's still unrelated to the matter here: porting go to
> > GNU/Hurd. It
> > looks like a bug fix which is completely independant from GNU/Hurd.
>
> Yes it is not Hurd-related. Maybe this should be filed as a separate
> bug. To gcc upstream directly?
Yes.
> > > > We could rather just implement the comm field in ps, AIUI it's
> > > > just an alias for the command field.
> > >
> > > Your choice. When implemented this patch wouldn't bee needed.
> >
> > Then please do implement it :)
>
> Sorry, I need help for doing this. Any other Hurd developer listening?
See spec_abbrevs in utils/ps.c, I guess it's a matter of adding
{"Comm=args"} in the list.
Samuel