From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Ca69Gi1twmNTpxYAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 03:51:57 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 624951E128; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 03:51:57 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=BYvEf01W; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F3EA1E0D3 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 03:51:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD263881D0D for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 08:51:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5FD263881D0D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1673686315; bh=XJmGn9YO4TIuYdlOmuqtpvCyJIChqXvDGxiKYj5FnVw=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=BYvEf01WpNZZeuZTLxmxw2mGm9q+LuXVW1W/9YY3LWSMd+RZVjZkPqds58R2HI4OG vNXTn39XlGMcQTA5VjwcDpciBSCqVZOzR2rXcAsn5zaJL3IUZauLZUBWK061Vx371p T9eZvc1p2lvui5y+36TU05YqbK3dnlI78wdEiFrM= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9733858C50; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 08:51:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5E9733858C50 Received: from linux-libre.fsfla.org ([209.51.188.54] helo=free.home) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pGcG8-0003Us-CS; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 03:51:28 -0500 Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 30E8pGPg1312776 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:51:16 -0300 To: Alan Modra via Gdb-patches Cc: Joseph Myers , Alan Modra , Tom de Vries , binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, bonzini@gnu.org, neroden@gcc.gnu.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de Subject: Re: [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for the GNU Project References: <20221020151027.GA1300@delia.home> <6a0ccc2-e4ab-c8f0-dffc-cd8f0f1369b@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:51:16 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Alan Modra via Gdb-patches's message of "Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:42:17 +1030") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Alexandre Oliva via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Alexandre Oliva Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Nov 8, 2022, Alan Modra via Gdb-patches wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote: >> >> > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc >> > git repository in a timely manner, or >> >> If a toplevel patch is approved for either repository, I think you should >> treat it as approved for the other one without needing separate review. > Thanks Joseph, that's how I see it too. Of course with the > understanding that binutils-gdb can't be used as a back door way of > sneaking in a gcc-specific change. > Can I get agreement among the gcc build maintainers that such a > policy is acceptable? FTR, II've long assumed that this cooperation in maintaining the top-level build machinery worked both ways already. Reducing divergence is a plus IMHO. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about