From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83185 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2017 15:22:00 -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 81707 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2017 15:21:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1751, H*r:sk:static., quality X-HELO: mail-io0-f193.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f193.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f193.google.com) (209.85.223.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:21:56 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-f193.google.com with SMTP id j200so8894680ioe.0 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:22:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NEu09CehHMPFYgEqR6yQzrlYngUQzJCxdkUX0Ff7bXw=; b=RhwdozyNBlc01iqZVcTWme8gFZmu/vvd4DvDyCPtFs1lySVvO8F5TUmvCYZBXY0xcW LsNLre4vNB4z1eGjYIUYMHWicGw25+73vfz8S9X0p1dsGejpsO+y2JpQHtnaY9AMsa58 APlA1DarEH96MAbjRaIQm1xP8GJx5KzzOmB90EI1FFXYBRBdVDkvI+/r2WMRO24sK8/V FMZESMWGWp2C/WSQApejgskqdHfe5xvolO6/mqwFAJtXaGkB6ZAsR8E6/K0g5MsyJUFm r9VhZ3t4Lo2GH1dy/CHck1/aC5bEr9XX3IOWXImyIXhDdviQmP/ANoX6Kc6lTeb19wHz qQsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOylxSTUd7izTXBp6xDyP55mSMdfdK8qeIneJlzlfTEE2wjeVtXR /+Zc5yBuTJ+qxw== X-Received: by 10.107.7.82 with SMTP id 79mr461199ioh.35.1497367319818; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E107787-LIN (static.42.136.251.148.clients.your-server.de. [148.251.136.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p74sm6353926iop.10.2017.06.13.08.21.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Yao Qi To: Simon Marchi Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Simon Marchi , , palves@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Remove a few hurdles of compiling with clang References: <1497124689-11842-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <83tw3n5jyk.fsf@gnu.org> <86tw3labb0.fsf@gmail.com> <83a85d5l4n.fsf@gnu.org> <93eb64489ac9d53665a144ddf5a966d5@polymtl.ca> <83wp8h40lo.fsf@gnu.org> <8660g0dzau.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Simon Marchi's message of "Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:23:27 +0200") Message-ID: <86o9trdib1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2 Simon Marchi writes: > If somebody is willing to do the work and that it doesn't degrade the cod= e quality, > we should have no problem accepting it. So if it's a "side-step" that al= lows both > compilers to be happy, that's ok. As a patch submitter, if you use prima= rily GCC, > you are not required to test your patches with Clang, but if you use prim= arily Clang, > you must test your patch with GCC (a version that's easily accessible for= you). > > Does that sound like a good rule? Yes, it is equivalent to "it is not acceptable to build GDB with compiler X but break the build with GCC" in my last email. I add some comments from Simon and Pedro. Eli, is it good to you? In general, it is good to keep GDB built by different popular compilers, so people are easy to build GDB and different warnings from different compilers will catch more bugs in GDB. On the other hand, GCC is still the primary compiler to build GDB, and support of other compilers in building GDB should not undermine the case that GDB is built by GCC nor degrade the code quality. For example, it is not acceptable to build GDB with compiler X but break the build with GCC. We still must fix the GDB build failure with GCC, as what we did in the past, and we welcome the contributions to fix the GDB build with other compilers. Ideally, every bug that other compilers find in the GDB source code that GCC didn't warn about should be considered as a GCC bug, and we should make sure that it's reported on the GCC tracker. I also looked for the place to add this policy. Looks the most relevant page is https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20Compiler-Warnings --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)