From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17103 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2001 18:47:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17079 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2001 18:47:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.147.211.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2001 18:47:29 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14363E6C; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:47:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C1E3DBF.4030601@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:47:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011207 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Corinna Vinschen Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: Added myself as XStormy16 maintainer in MAINTAINERS References: <20011217165411.D21898@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3C1E17DE.6090807@cygnus.com> <20011217190422.A15417@cygbert.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 11:05:50AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > As the subject says... I added myself as the maintainer for >> > the new Sanyo XStormy16 target under the obvious fix rule. > >> >> >> Not 100% obvious :-) You beat me to sending out an e-mail about this >> (we'd exchanged e-mail about it) :-/. Can you also add a ``,-Werror'' >> to the end of the MAINTAINERS line and an entry/section in the NEWS file. > > > I don't understand the need for the -Werror flag, though. (Strictly speaking ``,-Werror'' :-) The ``,-Werror'' documents that you target is of good quality since that code contains no compiler warnings (using GDB's select list). (To be honest, if someone asked for an example on how to target GDB, I'd probably point them at your code.) This in turn means that it is reasonable for you to expect someone making an obvious change (such as an interface change across all targets) to, as part of their testing, ensure that your target sill compiles without warnings. On the other hand, the Arm doesn't have this requirement since, thanks to third party code, it can't be compiled with ``-Werror'' For instance, my byte order changes, which are across targets, are being checked by me firstly compiling all targets and secondly by confirming that all those GDB's start (without an internal error). does this help? Andrew