Chris Liechti wrote:
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 are fine with me. The only thing I would say is don't do
anything that risks breaking our GCC 3.2.3 support :-)
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Should I update the files in gcc-3.2.3 that are no longer current?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.
Regards,
Steve
