This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Committed: fix ld/configure.tgt for mips*-freebsd*
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: rmh at gnu dot org
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:57:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: Committed: fix ld/configure.tgt for mips*-freebsd*
> From: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
> Sender: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
> El 9 dâ??abril de 2012 22:56, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> ha escrit:
> > Since you apparently take pride thereof: it seems the mentioned
> > etiquette has potential for improvement in the area of not
> > submitting untested patches, or preferably testing them and
> > disclosing how testing was done. Â?Just a personal note; not
> > speaking on behalf of the project and so on.
> I don't submit untested patches. My patches were throughfully tested
> on the platform they were intended for.
If the patch had been tested for both platforms it was intended
to affect, even by building, the bug would have been noticed.
> My test included a complete
> bootstrap off GCC, then Glibc, and some basic runtime tests.
> I'm sorry I didn't test your platform, but I never claimed I did.
Not "my platform", just one binutils (cross-)configuration among
many I (found by grepping and) used to test other mips-specific
binutils patches. I know what they are more-or-less, but I have
no particular interest in FreeBSD with or without k/gnu.
> However I made your life easier now that you'd like to run binutils in
Regarding mips*-freebsd*, I thought the patches broke it while
introducing the kfreebsd support, where it seems it had worked
before... ...no, wait that was wrong, this patch was really
about introducing mips*-freebsd*! Ok, at least it didn't break
> No need to say thanks, I only saved you a few hours of work.
No time saved at all, actually the opposite.
> But it
> is particularly distasteful of you to attack me like this.
What attack? Me pointing out that the patch wasn't sufficiently
tested? My point was that there was a bug noticeable in a
trivial cross-build, so I think it should have caught it basic
testing, that's all. Lesson learned; it's was stupid of me to
think anything good would come by CCing people submitting such
patches, that's just bringing fuel to fire. BTW, I think it's
particularly distasteful to start using parabolic expressions
like "particularly distasteful" so I'll stop right here, before
this turns into a flamefest of no interest to the binutils
project. Oops, too late. Sorry for that.