Re: [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case

[Alexandre Oliva via Gcc]

On Nov  8, 2022, Alan Modra via Gdb-patches  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote:
>> 
>> > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc
>> >git repository in a timely manner, or
>> 
>> If a toplevel patch is approved for either repository, I think you should 
>> treat it as approved for the other one without needing separate review.

> Thanks Joseph, that's how I see it too.  Of course with the
> understanding that binutils-gdb can't be used as a back door way of
> sneaking in a gcc-specific change.

> Can I get agreement among the gcc build maintainers that such a
> policy is acceptable?

FTR, II've long assumed that this cooperation in maintaining the
top-level build machinery worked both ways already.  Reducing divergence
is a plus IMHO.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist   GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about 

Re: [RFC][top-level] Add configure test-case

[Alan Modra via Gcc]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote:
> 
> > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc
> >git repository in a timely manner, or
> 
> If a toplevel patch is approved for either repository, I think you should 
> treat it as approved for the other one without needing separate review.

Thanks Joseph, that's how I see it too.  Of course with the
understanding that binutils-gdb can't be used as a back door way of
sneaking in a gcc-specific change.

Can I get agreement among the gcc build maintainers that such a
policy is acceptable?

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM