From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127854 invoked by alias); 19 May 2017 13:58:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 127838 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2017 13:58:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=engage, majority, thousand, book X-HELO: mail-wm0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 13:58:55 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 7so2704574wmo.1 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:58:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4/C81JiJfAXaNMvL0WiOe0wYJISs12WXKWHM8/60LmI=; b=owZmdXaalyld9D6jc6OMo03G2W/5E9pIKvg/Rv4qRQ5RkgLSz3z3m2ZJUmwJIbIV0x 1Gh9856HfvjFXc+yS7fX1g498YFycX7LcBu4RlD6xIXKVBdyMcREI0KvM0hLHr3ccpa2 lzyPOApBx3SHaJqIvu5mfB0BVRkwOdPOhaGz8hRUKtfAuLuqVjruJyen1ry8vMXIffnn eg2ggcZNeIEJo+s33ZMDVj3boOk1XwD2L8FghEinlalstReAGDp1mxSBMugxHNlU9tGJ 9wAIY1qza18y+F2zzR401AFhwcvNhcD2jFN0DhcHsVdVrOuzjOKNZe2UTzMl/e+8Ri5y GiDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDw3Y5WuMInoOgrWBWWQZzBuYEFe0Jkyz0g/Uh0riuKhf3ojsW1 YcB2b8fWN2axiKpF X-Received: by 10.28.46.137 with SMTP id u131mr7062741wmu.7.1495202337122; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([37.189.166.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c37sm3038747wra.16.2017.05.19.06.58.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 May 2017 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GDB 7.99.91 MinGW compilation warning in tui.c To: Eli Zaretskii References: <20170504194442.63AAF60B72@joel.gnat.com> <83mvancrze.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2zt89c8.fsf@gnu.org> <86k25f8n5w.fsf@gmail.com> <83a86b5t6f.fsf@gnu.org> <20170517182111.loklx3ex64f5brco@adacore.com> <834lwh46mi.fsf@gnu.org> <421dfd1c-912a-29f2-d051-f95fd66df2ab@redhat.com> <83wp9d2j51.fsf@gnu.org> <20e0a3e8-e626-93b1-68c6-6c42b1365aae@redhat.com> <83k25d2eni.fsf@gnu.org> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, qiyaoltc@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <4c762118-a6d8-bc15-d317-b117b6949fba@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 13:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83k25d2eni.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 On 05/19/2017 01:51 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > No. The patches are there, they are just not in the Diff format. A description of a patch is not a patch, in my book. > I > don't have write access to the GCC repository anyway, so describing a > bunch of simple patches sounded appropriate. And since no one > responded, I'm not sure it's worth my while to make any further > efforts. "A picture is worth a thousand words" kind of applies to patches too. You seem to assume that someone would take the descriptions you gave, turn them into actual code, make sure things still compile on their favorite host plus that it actually fixes what it's supposed to fix on MinGW, write some ChangeLogs, etc. And maybe what you describe as simple turns out to not be so simple, etc. Others will be wondering whether it'll be worth their efforts to engage too, especially those that don't use Windows which I think is the vast majority in these circles. If you attach/post a real diff/patch, showing exactly and unambiguously what it is that what you want to get in, then I expect you'd get quicker attention. You've asked "Should I just go ahead and fix our copy of libiberty?" So you've already implied that you'd do the work to actually write the patch and the ChangeLogs. So I don't understand the reluctance of posting an actual diff to gcc-patches. Thanks, Pedro Alves