This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: Broken tree with PATCH: back end initialization reorganization


> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:25:40 -0400
> From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>

> OK, it's just a typo.  I've committed the attached patch as obvious.  I 
> verified that the cris-axis-elf build now gets as far as it's going to 
> get without me having an appropriate as and whatnot around for it.

FWIW, CRIS is very much the same as any *-elf port
(e.g. newlib-based, binutils present, simulator in src/sim)
except that cris-sim.exp isn't in dejagnu-1.4.4.  See
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01571.html> for
that.

> > You'd see the same failure with an ARM toolchain (an incdec port
> > you and/or colleagues are familiar with), please regtest there
> > as well.  I suggest you revert the patch for the time being (no
> > special approval needed).
> 
> I'll start an ARM test build now, but is reverting the patch really 
> necessary unless we know there is some problem that can't be fixed in 10 
> minutes, like this one?

I guess I wasn't clear.  The breaking patchset you committed
could not have been *tested* on an incdec machine as it didn't
*compile*.  I assume there were non-obvious changes there, but
maybe not.  Reverting, rather than committing the obvious fix,
would just IMHO be the better action, while the change was
actually *tested* on an incdec port.  Hopefully the revertion
would be very temporary.

Anyway, I see the obvious patch is already committed.
Meanwhile, I'd started a regtest with the obvious patch applied
on r127835 (i.e. the same as r127836).  If no regressions,
you'll hear no further.

> Earlier this summer, MIPS build was broken for 
> weeks at a time due to changes other people had made on mainline to 
> things that were supposedly target-independent, after all.  :-P

I don't follow, if that was supposed to be a reason to keep the
tree broken or something.

I deal with breakages for the autotester for CRIS (if it isn't
noticed elsewhere) by either applying (obvious) patches or
screaming, and if no action for breakages with non-obvious
reasons, applying local patches.

brgds, H-P


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