Peter Jansen schrieb:
Working on gcc-4.0.2 and some changes I have had for gcc-3.2.3 etc, I
find that the files for gcc-3.2.3 are not the same as those in the
gcc-3.2.3 distribution. I assume this is because they are taken before
gcc-3.2.3 was released, while not really a problem, the files from the
gcc distribution only have minor changes and patched would work much
better.
So should we continue to maintain the files that are copied onto the gcc
distributions, or patch files that patch the gcc distribution? The
i'd keep the copied files for 3.2.3 (3.3 in CVS). that way are the build
instructions staying the same.
i wouldn't mind if you want to change that for gcc 4 onwards. and use
patches against the original gcc sources.
difference would be that instead of 'cp -a' all the files onto the
distribution 'patch -p 1 < patchfile' would be used.
>
I had put both into the CVS for gcc-4.0.2 but would, it be easier to
just put patches in and not the files? Files can be added using patches
also. Patches are easier to generate from the source tree than
separating out the files that have changed and including the hole file.
that would be ok for me, but what are thinking other people?
Dmity? Steve?
Patches would work better for example for the gcc-3.2.3 files that need
updating to get it to compile with gcc-4.x
Should I update the files in gcc-3.2.3 that are no longer current?
yes, please.
Ideas?
