This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 0/2] [PUSHED/OBV] gas/arc: Add nps400 support to .cpu directive
- From: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- To: Claudiu Zissulescu <claziss at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu dot Zissulescu at synopsys dot com>, Cupertino Miranda <Cupertino dot Miranda at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:30:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [PUSHED/OBV] gas/arc: Add nps400 support to .cpu directive
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover dot 1460822027 dot git dot andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com> <CAL0iMy1eDXHNYZS_B=zNvV+FMnp09yPHo2gxYLTiHEYgk=LG+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160417203517 dot GC6589 at embecosm dot com> <CAL0iMy0iDrUA_2U1WDnsym1z6a-wATDWyY932Mr5maK5dt_dPg at mail dot gmail dot com>
* Claudiu Zissulescu <email@example.com> [2016-04-17 23:36:08 +0200]:
> I will repeat what Nick told me about the obvious commits (you can
> trace it in binutils mailing list):
> "The only exception is if the patch can be considered to be "obvious",
> in which case you
> can check it in without prior approval, but you must still post the
> patch to the list,
> and tell people that you are committing an obvious fix. The exact
> definition of obvious
> in this context is a bit nebulous, but I consider it to mean not
> "legally significant",
> not adding a new feature, and one to which any seasoned programmer
> would say "oh yes,
> that is obvious".
>  http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant"
> I understand your patches are simple and can be considered obvious,
> but as far as I can read what Nick says, we still need to go through
> the reviewing process. My understanding of obvious patches are things
> like spelling, typos and fixing simple warnings or so.
Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this too me, you have
taught me a valuable lesson.
> Anyhow, coming back to your two commits, adding the nps4xx to .cpu
> directive is ok with me.
I have taken the liberty of leaving this commit in the tree. I'll
keep my fingers crossed that a global maintainer doesn't object :-)
> The one which ignores case sensitivity, I am
> in doubts, as it firstly changes the established semantic of the .cpu
> pseudo-op. Then, introduces an uncertainty how a cpu name is spelled.
> Finally, it seems it is a common practice for other processors as well
> to use case sensitivity match in this case. Though, I am not 100%
> against this latest patch, I would like to debate the pros and cons
> for such a change, although it may look trivial, the decision may
> affect us years to come.
I have reverted this change, and pushed the revert as obvious ;-)
Once again, thank you for your time, and I apologise to you, and any
other binutils developers for the offence I have caused.