This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


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

Re: [PATCH 2 of 2] cc/gcc: 4.4.5, add arm-softfloat-libgcc patch from buildroot


On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:27 PM, M P <buserror@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't worry Bryan, it's a typical sort of open source wanker at work.
>> I've seen a large number of these before, just don't fall for it.
>> Sometime (often) they get their mind so tight around an issue that
>> they completely lose track of the universe and reality.
>>
>> I'm sorry to say it's often the french who pull that sort of
>> stupidity, for some reason -- not a 1:1 rule obviously, but a rather
>> discriminant proportion.
>>
>> Anyway, AFAIK, both my ARM toolchain works with the patch, and if the
>> patch fix my build failure, I don't /want/ to know about quantum
>> physics related to gcc to get stuff done (wich in this case is more
>> like a flag to force-add the match library), I don't give a damn, in
>> this particular case :=)
>>
>> ie: so little time, so many, many interesting projects....
>>
>> Michel, aka Michael (aka a french expatriate)
>>
> To be a little bit more constructive, you see only the small picture.
> I don't care gcc working for you or not. Beside correctness, what I do
> care about is about all the other user of gcc not using crosstool-ng.
> At this point several path can arise:
> ?- the issue is real, the patch right, it gets in gcc, and all the
> open-source community take benefits
> ?- the issue is real, but the patch is wrong, then the gcc devs can
> fix it correctly and all the open-source community take benefits
> ?- the issue is ct-ng specific, then Yann would have to fix the issue
> inside ct-ng.
>
> That said, you may only care about you, and I can not do anything about it.
>

The best way to get a patch pushed upstream is to test it downstream.
The fact it works for me is a starter to eventually get there. Next,
try it with a few others (crosstool community) and eventually if that
works, it has a much, much better chance of being taken on upstream in
any case. But then again, theres still a large chance that a patch
that is vital to me, and others, never get into the mainstream for
other reasons. I've seen it many times before.

Your approach might sound like the right thing to you, but it doesn't
stand the real life test. I've seen many patches that were
ignored/dumped/refused on completely spurious reasons, and the
"community" eventually suffers. Heck, I still have a oneliner patch in
my kernel queue that has been repeatedly refused/ignored by the
ARM/samsung maintainer with zero reason given, even tho the casework
is completely bulletproof. And that just "one" case.

Therefore, you are still wrong in wanting to start pushing that upward
before it's been validated. Bryan has the right approach, and I
believe Yann also does the right thing on taking on "anything" patches
-- if they fix a problem -- theres a reason why crosstool is more or
less the only working cross compilation helper tool out there.

Michel

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq


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