Re: [PATCH 2/3 elf] Add MicroBlaze support to elf.h

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> Yet I find it easy to quantify how much harm is done by
>> not working on P2 bugs for 2.17 (opportunity cost paid
>> by working on something else).
>>
>> Thus when I balance "Potential future harm because
>> feature X is not in 2.17" versus "Potential future harm
>> done by bug fix X not in 2.17", I always find the latter
>> is more important.
>>
>> How do these two balance out in your own judgement?
>
> I believe that new ports not requiring architecture-independent changes
> beyond elf.h / config.sub / config.guess (and NEWS, and README ... README
> is currently missing any mention of AArch64) should generally be free to
> go in at any time; the benefits of the port outweigh the negligible risks
> from the elf.h changes, and the port needs reviewing anyway (a freeze
> should not be a freeze on reviews at all).

Thanks. That limited list makes sense to me, and I can rationalize
wanting these changes to be incorporated as quickly as possible such
that other architectures waiting on their own ELF values don't have
to wait.

Cheers,
Carlos.