This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] Tilera (and Linux asm-generic) support for glibc
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:50:53 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] Tilera (and Linux asm-generic) support for glibc
- References: <201111100054.pAA0sf6u025585@farm-0002.internal.tilera.com><CAOPLpQeYkCxui8-tfzrwRzu1fTe8qbMQ7k4Ar5mM+Ja2VoUp8g@mail.gmail.com><4EBD94B4.email@example.com><20111111214214.BC66D2C0FE@topped-with-meat.com><201112040047.pB40lD4Q007506@farm-0002.internal.tilera.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I don't see anything wrong with this. To my mind, we should consider
> target-specific parts of elf.h to be covered by target maintainership
> (whether the target is in libc or in ports), and likewise for
> target-specific parts of other files. That's the rule followed in GCC:
> target maintainership is for the logical target, not for a physical set of
> files. That is, I think we should say the maintainership rules allow you
> to commit this to libc, allow me to commit changes to the ARM definitions
> in elf.h, and so on.
I think that's right, modulo general review rules about formatting and
style rules in the file.