Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

["Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>" <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>]

Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
> > * I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I
> > never have sent any gcc patch to any other list but gcc-patches for
> > approval before, so I also had not done so this time.
> >
> > * How could I know that the responsible maintainers aren't listening to
> > bugzilla and gcc-patches, but are listening to a fortran specific list,
> > I even didn't know about until your posting?
>
>
> For future reference, where patches should be sent is explained here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

OK .. and Bugzilla or http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html references that link how?

A search for "patch" in the bug reporting instructions does not mention
anything about cc'ing any patch list.

I'm not trying to be irritating here.  Just pointing out that if there 
is a procedure, it doesn't appear to be referenced in all the right 
places and isn't tied to the PR system.

Given the recent discussions of unfriendly responses, what if a new
person X found and bug and fixed it, they would file a PR with Bugzilla 
and most likely attach the patch.  And then there is a high probability 
that someone would not so kindly tell them they hadn't followed a 
procedure that doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere they had seen
along the obvious path.

Putting on my CM hat:

  + Procedures do not exist unless they are documented.
  + Procedures that do not get assisted/enforced by tools are ignored.

> jon

--joel