From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47942 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2017 18:42:43 -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 47795 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2017 18:42:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: einhorn.in-berlin.de Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (HELO einhorn.in-berlin.de) (192.109.42.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:42:29 +0000 X-Envelope-From: doko@ubuntu.com Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([95.90.247.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u1) with ESMTP id v0MIg8ZA019506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:42:09 +0100 Subject: Re: [patch] update zlib to the 1.2.10 release. To: NightStrike References: <02ad1804-017b-3637-a532-aa6c7b8aa2a9@redhat.com> <5b68833c-cf12-d858-9636-d12c40236dcd@ubuntu.com> Cc: Jeff Law , GCC Patches , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils , Iain Buclaw , Johannes Pfau From: Matthias Klose Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:42:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 On 22.01.2017 19:12, NightStrike wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> NightStrike proposed to revert to the 1.2.8 release until zlib stabilizes again; >> I'm open for that, but didn't want to stay with the 1.2.10 release. > > I don't recall making that proposal. I thought I just suggested that > since modern zlib now supports having a separate build and source > directory (at least according to the December changelog: "Allow > building zlib outside of the source directory"), you should check to > see if the gcc build system had any hacks to accomplish the same thing > that could now be removed. sorry for wrongly citing you. Please could you make the removal of zlib a goal for GCC 8? I may be a bit biased trying to keep the "ongoing" d/gdc merge alive (libgphobos requiring a target zlib). Matthias