This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Add myself as libbid maintainer
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:59:55 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Add myself as libbid maintainer
- References: <468D2D21.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Uros Bizjak <email@example.com> writes:
> IMO the situation here is the same as with current soft-fp
> situation. The library should be considered as imported from upstream,
> and the decisions w.r.t formatting are inherited from the upstream. In
> soft-fp case, functions don't have prototypes, and we (as in gcc
> developers) can't do nothing about that.
> In contrast with soft-fp, libbid library doesn't produce any warnings...
> Although not explicitly said, the fixes should be sent upstream (and
> then "imported" from upstream), at least this is the case with all
> other "foreign" libraries.
The situation seems somewhat different to me, since soft-fp is being
inherited from another free software project. In fact, a GNU project.
It doesn't mean that we can work that way, but I would like these
issues to be out on the table, discussed, and documented.