Re: [PATCH 5/5] add libcc1

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>]

On 31/07/14 05:47, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/19/14 14:52, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Here's a new version of patch #5.
>> I've removed the generated code; let's see if it gets through without
>> compression.
>>
>> I think this addresses all the reviews:
>>
>> * It uses gcc-plugin.m4 to disable the plugin
>> * It does some configure checks for needed functionality, and disables
>>    the plugin if they are not found
>> * libcc1 and the plugin now do a protocol version handshake at
>>    startup
>> * The diagnostic overriding code is now in the plugin, not in gcc proper
>> * gdb now tells libcc1 about the target triplet, and libcc1 uses
>>    this to invoke the proper GCC.  This is done by (ewww) searching $PATH.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> 2014-06-19  Phil Muldoon  <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
>>         Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

> So my biggest concern here is long term maintenance -- who's going to own care and feeding of these bits over time.

Sorry for taking so long to reply.  We've talked, on irc and elsewhere
a little (some at the Cauldron too!).  I think the consensus is as
nobody has explicitly mentioned anything, this is OK to go in?  So to
be a pain, I think we should get an archivable "OK to check-in" and
that I, or other members of the Red Hat team (or anyone else that
comes along that is interested), will maintain this.  FWIW, I don't
really see bit-rot as an issue because 1) I'll be around and so will
other hackers working on this -- I think it is very important to GDB;
2) It's not really a patch-set I think is horribly susceptible to bit
rot anyway.

> My inclination is to go ahead and approve, but explicitly note that if the bits do start to rot that we'll be fairly aggressive at disabling/removing them.

That's a fair condition and I can happily live with that. Agreed on
the conditional here.

> Now that my position is out there for everyone to see, give the other maintainers a few days (say until Monday) to chime in with any objections.

Well it's been a few  months, so Monday has long gone ;)

> Obviously if there are no objections and you check in the change, please be on the lookout for any fallout.  I'm particularly concerned about AIX, Solaris and other non-linux platforms.

Noted.

> Does this deserve a mention in the news file?

I am not sure.  All the interface to this is really through GDB.
I'll let someone else tell me yes or no for news.  The patch set I have on my
desk is ready to go, and I believe all alterations have been approved
in previous email threads.

Cheers,

Phil