This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR40010 - Fix man page generation for parallel builds
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Mark Loeser <mark at halcy0n dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:30:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR40010 - Fix man page generation for parallel builds
- References: <20090619184059.GB22166@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20090623185105.GB13715@gmx.de> <m33a98b7mw.fsf@google.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0907111053110.17883@enan.fvgr>
* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:53:40AM CEST:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> I think your patch is correct, but I cannot approve it. Please send
> >> future patches with ChangeLog entries. If somebody would approve it,
> >> I could apply it for you as below, to trunk. Since this isn't a
> >> regression, it doesn't seem admissible to stable branches, although
> >> it would sure help them, too.
> > This patch is OK.
>
> The reason we focus on regressions as far as stable branches go is that
> we do want to avoid regressions there. In the case of a patch like this,
> which merely adds a missing dependency to a Makefile rule I would be in
> favor of applying this to stable branches given that now and then I am
> seeing complaints about GCC not being make -j safe which, among others,
> hits GCC in the FreeBSD ports collection where a fair number of people
> build from source who are not familiar with GCC at all.
I agree. OK to also add the patch to branch-4_4, against which the bug
was reported?
FWIW, this was the patch as added to trunk:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=149345>
Thanks,
Ralf