This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: %pc relative addressing of string literals/const data
- From: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim dot tjernlund at transmode dot se>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:53:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: %pc relative addressing of string literals/const data
- References: <OF9A1FAE59.64738DA2-ONC12577B3.00441CDC-C12577B3.0044F4DB@transmode.se> <4CAB74F7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <OFF406B9B7.50DB18C1-ONC12577B3.0070B011-C12577B3.0072F44F@transmode.se> <4CAB94B3.email@example.com> <OFA4A1D881.1D4EFD3D-ONC12577B3.00764974-C12577B3.0077094E@transmode.se> <20101005221926.GB29181@bubble.grove.modra.org> <OFE81F0B36.9C6A64B9-ONC12577B8.002D5630-C12577B8.003347B2@transmode.se> <20101011125845.GT26553@bubble.grove.modra.org> <OFB53662B0.C84CB86F-ONC12577BA.003109C3-C12577BA.00317E80@LocalDomain> <OF5CBF32FC.7306A2E7-ONC12577BC.004C4412-C12577BC.004C67AE@transmode.se> <AANLkTi=ZtpYRKPxS_0BZmp+bN20aYU4SqHE2O33oA+F0@mail.gmail.com> <OF49793959.A8ADFEF9-ONC12577DB.0051D862 <F8493C7B-223A-44C2-8B35-D7F965A0105E@comcast.net>
Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 2010/11/17 17:29:32:
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> This patch is okay.
> > Well, its been a week and I haven't seen any progress on this, let alone
> > my other patch which hasn't been commented upon at all.
> > What does "okay" really mean?
> Okay - Non-canonical spelling of Ok.
I never figured that :)
> Ok. - Indication that a patch is ok to be checked in now; no further work or discussion is necessary. If you have write after privs, you can check it in (assuming you've met all other requirements, assignment, testing...). If you don't have write privs, it means you can then solicit someone to
check it in for you. The usual convention would be to address all other minor points people raised in review and repost and then check that in. If there were major points raised during review, one more round of review and approval. Essentially, if the new work would be obviously ok to the
maintainer, then you can skip the last review. So for example, spelling corrections, white space fixups, wording in comments, avoidance of warnings would all be minor points. A redo of an algorithm to be different, would require review. If in doubt, ask Ok? If you checked in it, say, committed
to trunk. Absence either of these, leaves it unclear to the reviewers which state a discussion is in,
> though the usual convention would be to assume it was checked in.
> So, apparently, the right followup for you, would be the magic phrase, "Could someone check this in for me, thanks." If you plan on doing a lot of work, and have submitted many patches that have made it in, the more appropriate phrase would be, "I don't yet have write-after privs, would someone
check this in for me, thanks." This prods people to consider sponsoring you for a write-after account.
> That's the short version, I could give a much longer version, but, I'm lazy. :-)
Right, me too.
There has been no objections, in fact the only comment I got is
"This patch is okay."
I do not have write privs of any kind nor do I want to have.
Could someone please check this patch in?