Re: Linux vs. libio

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <199912210029.QAA17146@atrus.synopsys.com>you write:
  > Mark Mitchell writes:
  > 
  > >   > If that's what the steering committee, or whoever decides this kind o
  > f
  > >   > thing, wants to do, then that's what we'll do.
  > 
  > Jeff writes:
  > > A branch is certainly the direction I'm leaning.
  > 
  > OK, how about this.
  > 
  > Step 1: Mark checks in the code as a branch.
  > 
  > Step 2: Mark works with Uli to find an patch that the glibc team can
  > accept, giving the *option* (not on by default) of separate
  > glibc/libstdc++ I/O structures.  The goal is to be able to run with
  > the production glibc and -fnew-abi for C++.
  > 
  > (glibc folks: please be open to those gcc developers and testers who want
  > to work with a stable glibc and an experimental libstdc++ on Linux.
  > Without it, we're never going to get the libstdc++ quality up.)
  > 
  > Step 3: Once agreement is obtained, the code is put into the main gcc branc
  > h.
Sounds reasonable to me.

  > >   >   o We're not going to do stuff willy-nilly without asking the libio
  > >   >     folks for approval.
  > > This is the issue.  And I've stated before that if you get a buy-in from
  > > the glibc folks then you can go forward.  But you need a buy in *before*
  > > you start checking in the changes.
  > 
  > Fine (if "checking in" means "checking in on the main branch").
Yes.  That is precisely what I meant.  I should have been clearer on that 
point.

jeff