On 23-12-2015 15:41, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> >> >>> Em 22 de dez de 2015, às 14:22, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> >>> escreveu: >>> >>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Jim Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> I tracked the bulk of the patch back to April 2011, though some new >>>> LTO related testsuite changes date back to January 2011. The initial >>>> patch submission for the bulk of the patch appears to be >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-04/msg00275.html >>>> It is a large patch, and HJ had to update it twice in the next 24 >>>> hours to fix problems with it. The size would have discouraged an >>>> immediate review. And the fact that it was updated twice in 24 hours >>>> after posting would have discouraged reviewers even more. >>> >>> Multiple revisions in a few days isn't uncommon. But 5 years have >>> passed at this point. >>> >>>> People were perhaps waiting for the final version of the patch before >>>> trying to review it, and then accidentally forgot about it along the >>>> way. I don't see any discussion of the patch at the time. And I >>>> haven't seen any attempt to resubmit it, though I could have missed >>>> something. >>>> >>>> I see that the issue was discussed earlier in December 2010. HJ made >>>> a proposal for a fix, and there was feedback at that time. >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00229.html >>>> it looks like there were 3 separate related threads which may have >>>> confused the issue a bit. >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00012.html >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00182.html >>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00231.html >>>> >>>> Anyways, the size of the patch suggests using caution and waiting for >>>> upstream review. Though I did find a reference that suggests Fedora >>>> is using it >>>> >>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130513/1022584.html >>>> which suggests that it may be well tested. This was done by Nick >>>> Clifton, who is one of the binutils maintainers, so maybe we just need >>>> someone to ask about the status of the patch on the binutils mailing >>>> list to remind people that it still needs to be reviewed for the >>>> upstream FSF binutils tree. >>> >>> Could you (i.e. someone in the toolchain team) take care of this? >> >> I will sort this out when I get back from holidays. > > Great, thank you. > > > Nicolas >
Nicolas, I am about to start a new thread about ""ld -r" on mixed IR/non-IR objects", asking current status from H.J. Lu, what is preventing upstream merge, concerns and objections. First I would to know which the priority of this feature for your work on kernel tinification. I am asking it because based on the threads about previous tries to push this upstream I foresee it will take some time (either by review or design discussion). It will also help us discuss the viability to add the patchset in your branch and the pro and cons of having it out-of-tree. _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
