From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20501 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2015 22:46:22 -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 20476 invoked by uid 89); 14 Feb 2015 22:46:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f49.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f49.google.com) (74.125.82.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:46:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l18so23057141wgh.8 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:46:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.205.138 with SMTP id lg10mr32987765wjc.130.1423953978009; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.80.204 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:46:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54DF95AC.2090707@redhat.com> References: <1423524046-20605-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1423524046-20605-10-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <54D94780.9050606@redhat.com> <54DF95AC.2090707@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/36] floatformat.h: Wrap in extern "C". From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: Andrew Pinski , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 02/14/2015 05:29 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 02/09/2015 11:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>>> Why is not needed for GCC building with C++ compiler? >>> >>> Because it doesn't include it. >>> >>> The header of the file claims it is part of GDB, though MAINTAINERS >>> nowadays says that everything under include/ is owned by GCC. >> >> Wait, what? >> >> The actual wording is: >> "The rule is that if the file exists in the gcc tree then gcc owns it." > > I was paraphrasing, and simplified it. That distinction seems > irrelevant to me here because the file does exist in the gcc tree. > It's necessary to build libiberty (for libiberty/floatformat.o). No worries, I just wanted to make sure it didn't say something it shouldn't. > It's a fact that the header claims it is part of GDB: > > ~~~~~~ > /* IEEE floating point support declarations, for GDB, the GNU Debugger. > Copyright (C) 1991-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > This file is part of GDB. > (...) > ~~~~~~ > > I guess it should say that it is part of libiberty instead. At the least the current wording is confusing. >> It originated from this thread, >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2013-11/msg00025.html >> That's not the first message in the thread, but that's where >> I remember wanting to see something written down. >> >> Perhaps kinda unfortunate for things like include/gdb/gdb-index.h. >> But at least it's a rule that can be expressed in one sentence, >> and I don't think it's been a problem. > > I'm confused -- I didn't say it was a problem, nor expressed any > concern with the rule. I just was pointing out facts. I didn't say you said it was a problem. It was just an offhand comment about the rule itself, not anything you said. > ISTM that the procedure here is to push this change first through > the gcc repo first, and then merge it to binutils-gdb git. Is that > wrong? That's the procedure as I understand it.