This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

Hi folks,
Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for
the DragonFly targets?  It's a blocker for other patches of mine that
have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go
in first.


On 4/20/2014 21:04, John Marino wrote:
> On 4/20/2014 14:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 19 April 2014 20:39, John Marino wrote:
>>> Hello GCC developers,
>>> For the last few years, I have been maintaining a large set of patches
>>> that add support for the DragonFly BSD target and also complete Ada
>>> frontend support on all four major BSDs among other things.  Before I
>>> can submit patches for Ada or testsuite cases, DragonFly must be a
>>> recognized, working target.  The patches attached here will provide
>>> out-of-the-box support for the C, C++, Objective-C and Fortran frontends.
>> Thanks for the patch - I only have a few general, minor comments. As
>> noted at C++ library patches should go
>> to the libstdc++ list as well as gcc-patches, so I've CC'd that list
>> (original mail and patch are at
>> Patches should not include generated files such as configure, as the
>> diffs don't always apply cleanly and the changes are implied by the
>> patches to files such as acinclude.m4 and The
>> regenerated versions should of course be committed, and the ChangeLog
>> should mention they are regenerated, as you've done.
> Thanks for your advice, Jonathan.
> I've updated the patch to remove the two "configure" file patches.  I
> also removed an errant "-rpath" from the dragonfly.h specs that crept in
> from FreeBSD ports.  I've attached the updated patch to this email.
>> The changelog text should be correctly capitalised and sentences ended
>> with a period (e.g. "New target." and "New." not "New target" and
>> "new"). The individual ChangeLog entries at
>> would generally be used as the commit message, grouped and prefixed by
>> the name of the sub-directory:
> I have updated the six entry files at
> to
> conform to this style.  I updated the proposed commit message
> accordingly:
>> The libstdc++ changes are OK for trunk if the rest gets approved.
> Thanks!
> I see from the critique of another submitted patch that also touches
> liberty that I'm supposed to cross-post to gdb and binutils, so I've
> cc'd them as well.
> Regards,
> John

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]