This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Broken tree with PATCH: back end initialization reorganization
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: sandra at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, davidu at mips dot com, nigel at mips dot com
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:51:50 +0200
- Subject: 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