This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH RFA: Build system: Use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:33:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Build system: Use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
- References: <AANLkTikSW7ZP5xJ-0y6LLSLaX7EtwdpQOHxt6vx7BOEp@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
With Paolo's patch, my bootstrap has progressed into stage 2.
Hopefully the Flex-generated file is the only case where header files
are included in the wrong order. Paolo's patch definitely is a step
in the right direction.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.com> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Also, given this problem, I want to try a meta-experiment: At the GCC
>> Summit, some Google developers proposed that any patch causing
>> breakage immediately be reverted, following the practice at Google.
>> Jakub mentioned on IRC that reverting the patch will break bootstrap
>> on i386-linux and other targets. ?So Googlers, how do you want to
>> proceed and demonstrate your own proposed policy in action?
> Although I was regularly interrupted during that discussion at the
> summit, I tried a few times to say that in my opinion the policy would
> only apply during the first few days after the patch was committed.
> It's been a week for this patch now.
> Also there is a conflict in that this patch fixed bootstrap for
> i686-unknown-linux-gnu, a primary platform, whereas you are telling us
> that it breaks bootstrap for powerpc-ibm-aix188.8.131.52 a secondary
> platform. ?The right step would have been to revert the earlier
> simple_object patch, rather than this one.
> So on both those grounds I'm not sure an immediate reversion of this
> patch is appropriate now, but I will do it if you ask again.
> Another approach would be the appended patch. ?Does it fix the problem?
> Build maintainers, any opinion?