This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 5/5] add libcc1
- From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, tom at tromey dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:07:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] add libcc1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches
- References: <1400254001-12038-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <87oayx4l0x dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <87bntobp1f dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <53D9CA7B dot 3040709 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
>> 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
>> * 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.
>> 2014-06-19 Phil Muldoon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Tom Tromey <email@example.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
> 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.
> 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.