PATCH: Add myself as libbid maintainer

Ian Lance Taylor iant@google.com
Thu Jul 5 18:00:00 GMT 2007


Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> writes:

> IMO the situation here is the same as with current soft-fp
> situation. The library should be considered as imported from upstream,
> and the decisions w.r.t formatting are inherited from the upstream. In
> soft-fp case, functions don't have prototypes, and we (as in gcc
> developers) can't do nothing about that.
> 
> In contrast with soft-fp,  libbid library doesn't produce any warnings...
> 
> Although not explicitly said, the fixes should be sent upstream (and
> then "imported" from upstream), at least this is the case with all
> other "foreign" libraries.

The situation seems somewhat different to me, since soft-fp is being
inherited from another free software project.  In fact, a GNU project.

It doesn't mean that we can work that way, but I would like these
issues to be out on the table, discussed, and documented.

Ian



More information about the Gcc mailing list