This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Eager <eager at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>, Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Joe Taylor <joe at tensilica dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:20:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- References: <200405112302.i4BN2g4U011972@magilla.sf.frob.com> <40A17F1E.1000208@mvista.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 06:34:22PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> I think that there has to be a better method of ensuring that
> architectures are supported rather than the kludge (IMO) of using
> add-on and separate files which are not distributed with the core
> sources. My preference is to have sources integrated into the
> source tree. An "add-on" would be my last choice. If it were a
> choice between distributing a patch to glibc which had the same
> source file organization versus a patch which created an "add-on"
> with a different file organization, my preference would be for the
> former.
A glibc add-on file layout is not very much different from the layout in the
tree.
For xtensa, you could have xtensa, xtensa-linuxthreads and xtensa-nptl
add-ons. The layout in each would be:
xtensa/
configure # Might be even dummy
Banner
ChangeLog
Makefile
sysdeps/xtensa/
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/xtensa/
The last two directories would contain almost exactly the same files as
what you have in your tree ATM (well, #include "../foo.c" like includes
would need to be changed, but that's about it).
All changes you'd probably need to propagate to glibc itself are elf/elf.h
additions.
Jakub