This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PATCH: Update longlong.h from GLIBC
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>,Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>,"H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:05:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Update longlong.h from GLIBC
- References: <20120507211142.GA9268@intel.com> <201205081104.46772.aj@suse.com> <4FA8EE86.60409@arm.com>
On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:59:34 Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 08/05/12 10:04, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:43:14 Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:11 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am preparing to update GLIBC longlong.h from GCC. This patch
> >>> updates GCC longlong.h to use a URL instead of an FSF postal address
> >>> and replace spaces with tab. OK to install?
> >>>
> >>> Since I'd like to simply copy longlong.h from GCC release branch to
> >>> GLIBC, Is this also OK for 4.7 branch?
> >>
> >> Why? Does it fix anything there?
> >
> > It makes sharing the file between gcc and glibc easier,
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Why should glibc be depending on the GCC release branch? Sounds like
> the tail wagging the dog.
Ah, you discuss the release branch ;) Let HJ defend that one.
> Changing this file has quite a high potential for introducing
> regressions. I don't think we should risk that on the release branch.
It's only whitespace IMO. I'm arguing for the trunk to take the change,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126