This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/19933 and PR target/21315

> > The question is: should we avoid getting in the way of updates at the
> > risk of not fixing anymore, which means allowing broken headers to again
> > slip through the cracks?
> In my opinion, yes.

OK, at least that's clearly stated. :-)

> In practice, as far as I can tell, all distributions are moving to be
> more standards-compliant, not less.  Our system distribution customers
> are actively trying to fix their headers so as to avoid the need to have
> GCC fix them.  And, they are frustruated by the fact that even after
> they fix them, they may still end up getting fixed spuriously,
> especially if the spurious fix is coming from something added for some
> other system entirely that just happens to fire on their headers.

Note that Solaris fixes are immune to this latter problem:

+    select = '@\(#\)math_c99.h' "[ \t]+1.[0-9]+[ \t]+[0-9/]+ SMI";

unless someone really attempts to mimic Solaris byte for byte. :-)

I'm not really convinced, but Joseph and you have more experience dealing with 
this kind of things than me, so I'll make the change suggested by Joseph for 
the next revision of the patch.  Thanks for your feedback.

Eric Botcazou

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]