Re: croostool-ng: GCC 4.4.1 Working!

[Joachim Nilsson <jocke at vmlinux dot org>]

On 09/26/2009 10:19 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > OK, so I don't want to sit on these patches any longer.
> Yes, sorry... I have been a bit lazy the past few days (weeks) wrt
> crosstool-NG... It's been threee years now I'm working on it, and
> I feel a little bit blasé.

Sorry to hear that, we are a lot of people who really appreciate your 
work!  With your recent move to hg it could perhaps be easier to share 
the burden, so to speak?

Are there anyone else out there willing to help Yann?

I'm still learning, but I could at least start by reading up on hg and 
clone your tree. (I am a bit of a bzr and git man myself though, so I've 
been lazy...)

Maybe the best way for you would be if we set up a better patch approval 
process?  When a new patch is suggested (like mine), some other people 
start evaluating it and give it ++ or --, and if enough people approve 
your job is simply to pull it in?  Not too unlike how Linus does it...

> On Saturday 26 September 2009 17:27:59 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> > On 09/06/2009 01:01 PM, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> > > Anyway, I used the latest head (correct hg terminology?) of crosstool-ng
> > > and added the 4.4.1 GCC patches from buildroot:
> > > http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/toolchain/gcc/4.4.1
> > > That's about it.
> > > How would I proceed in contributing these patches, inline attachments,
> > > publish a Mercurial branch, or is it sufficient with the above pointer?
> I'm a bit reluctant at applying your patch: there are currently 25 patches
> applied to gcc-4.4.0, and I find it odd that 4.4.1 only requires 5.
> I will try to forward-port the gcc-4.4.0 patchset up to 4.4.1.

I see, I was a bit surprised myself when I started looking at how the 
buildroot guys had done it.  I, perhaps wrongly, assumed they had 
already checked if existing patches had been applied upstream.

> And to answer your question, the README has a quick step-by-step example
> on how to submit patches. It boils down to using Mercurial's patchbomb
> extension.

Thanks, you're always too kind!  A simple RTFM would have been 
appropriate in this case. ;-)

Regards
 /Joachim

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq