Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>]

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 03:31 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2005 03:16, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 03:11:03AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 May 2005 02:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > > Oh, and how helpful of you to post that patch to gcc-patches@ too...
> > > > NOT!
> > >
> > > Ah, I see you did post it to gcc-patches@, but not to fortran@, which
> > > is a requirement for gfortran patches -- and the reason why nobody
> > > has noticed the patch.
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02287.html
> > >
> > > The patch is OK too.
> >
> > Steven, please try to be politer to someone who is trying to help.
> 
> How is it helpful to not follow the rules when posting patches
Quite simple:

* I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I
never have sent any gcc patch to any other list but gcc-patches for
approval before, so I also had not done so this time.

* How could I know that the responsible maintainers aren't listening to
bugzilla and gcc-patches, but are listening to a fortran specific list,
I even didn't know about until your posting?

>  and
> make exaggerated claims that something does not work?

I don't see where I exaggerated.

The fact that nobody before has hit these obvious issues, to me are
"just leaks" in GCC's QA/testing procedures/procedures, which ought to
be closed. If I weren't interested in seeing these closed, I would not
complain/file PRs on the and would not contribute/try to contribute
patches.

> > This kind of tone will only discourage contributors.
> 
> My tone was no different than Ralf's toward me.

Well, I admit I had been sarcastic/fatalistic in replying to Steven,
primarily, because I am pretty much frustrated about GCC's mainstream
developer's position/attitude on embedded targets.
Steven's answers perfectly queue-in into a long history of incidents
which had lead me to my understanding of "GCC mainstream developers'
attitude" on "embedded targets", which I already had described in former
postings.

Ralf