This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: GT <tnggil at protonmail dot com>
- Cc: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:56:51 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
- References: <CAGWvnykktWuDVLrMrOiLrGV9aOUUQNd8Bf1FiiWbQ_G-aXJyvQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902281514280.4473@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <87lg1zn687.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902281810270.20103@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <87ef7rn3uj.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <Va5DLyFouG-pOYSW0osnuTg2RRjCEsQF6mYXCKNTFZSE4h0fX0kAOkH8-0EMivO0tMrSn-T2jK7GBNBcQnI_vjkMjgeb7sjPscHVOlqf_ao=@protonmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903012207200.29803@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <pY1zcuIUDeySpFynMv979KQmb37qfZnrcQ98ldKaG5znsTC5i2CocB1NC_YdIV3SDxRr4x8AAYTL2bih3rlKv6wP7V1wLSHawwZRc1KCLHw=@protonmail.com>
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, GT wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 10:09 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, GT wrote:
> >
> > > Does the following procedure accomplish 'no change to API/ABI':
> > >
> > > - Introduce a new preprocessor macro PPC64_VSX_DISABLE_LIBMVEC
> > > - In sysdeps/powerpc/bits/math-vector.h, change:
> >
> > That name is in the user's namespace, so it should not be tested in any
> > installed header.
>
> The objection here being that the macro name is missing a double-underscore
> prefix? Or, because the patches are destined for a branch, there is no longer
> need for the macro at all?
The first is the problem, but it's also the case that there is no need for
such a macro when it's on a branch.
> 1. With no GCC support imminent - weeks away at a minimum - is testing done
> by 'make check' all that is required for patch acceptance into the branch?
It's up to the branch owner what policies they apply to their branch.
It's perfectly fine to have a branch that doesn't build at all, if that's
convenient for the people working on that branch.
> 3. Meanwhile, I finish making changes asked for from the last submission to
> libc-alpha. Then wait until branch is created before sending new patch?
You don't need to have a branch to send patches (but a branch may be
convenient once you have a series of patches, each building on top of the
previous one).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com