This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536
- From: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com>, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:40:02 +0400
- Subject: Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r208536
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdxH9rh0Cz8LBYZsuHKEFpkVosNkX2qrX10RGwK5hFEEqg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoToF3bb-L9SiPUGmtoZ9Tp3EHFTE-p0DbxWdumRDXgYw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdzUYt6Q9PvbWe=0Rt0_Ext1LjfEeKtn1ANKuLRhnOQCKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <1EC5D30D-A03E-49BB-9BFF-86562E5CA5B5 at gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdwE900KCt86qSTbNGjsmqKriN=Ht=+K+O-0LMS1c00ivQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <yddiopa3x0a dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
>> other than by following the standard process because this will violate
>> the LLVM developer policy.
> Which says what?
"Once your patch is ready, submit it by emailing it to the appropriate
projectâs commit mailing list (or commit it directly if applicable).
Alternatively, some patches get sent to the projectâs development list
or component of the LLVM bug tracker, but the commit list is the
primary place for reviews and should generally be preferred."
> Your current policy seems to massively impede contributions.
How? (BTW, I am not the one who sets these policies and discussing
them with me makes little sense)
Or do you refer to our own (non-LLVM) requirement to use arc for
non-trivial libsanitizer patches?
The tool requires 3 minutes to set up for a patch author and saves us
(reviewers) much more time, so we will continue to require it.