This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Patch] Fix build problem with system call in compile/compile.c
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Chen Gang S <gang dot chen at sunrus dot com dot cn>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, sellcey at imgtec dot com, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 08:30:02 +0400
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix build problem with system call in compile/compile.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54AD8A76 dot 9010702 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LFD dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501072330430 dot 27020 at eddie dot linux-mips dot org> <20150108211229 dot GA5634 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <1420755123 dot 2630 dot 21 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <54AF1118 dot 2070707 at redhat dot com> <1420762209 dot 2630 dot 27 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <54AF50E4 dot 3080901 at sunrus dot com dot cn> <54AFA92C dot 8010108 at redhat dot com> <54AFB275 dot 9060803 at sunrus dot com dot cn> <54B04125 dot 4050802 at sunrus dot com dot cn>
> Excuse me, I am not quite familiar with the patch apply working flow for
> binutils/gdb, it seems each patch can only have one 'Signed-of-by' for
> it (do not like Linux kernel or QEMU, can have multiple 'Signed-of-by').
>
> For me, this patch need multiple 'Signed-of-by': I start the patch, and
> Pedro Alves give a very necessary improvement (or it will introduce a
> new bug, which is not recognized quite obviously by others).
I know you've answered your own question about your patch in particular,
but I wanted to clarify a couple of things.
About "can only have one 'Signed-off-by'":
We do not use git's sign-off (at least, not at the moment).
As you know, there is an approval process through this mailing
list which is used instead, but who actually approves the patch
is not recorded in the git commit.
However, the approver is not the same thing at the author, or
the group of authors. If you are the sole author of a patch,
and I request a few small changes that you make, and then it
gets approved, you are still the sole author of those changes.
Hence your name remains the only name listed in the corresponding
ChangeLog entries. There is a small exception where a reviewer
contributes significant ideas towards the final patch, or even
contributes pieces of it, in which case the reviewer now also
becomes co-author, in which case his name gets added to the
corresponding ChangeLog entries.
> If what I said above is correct, one way maybe, apply my original patch
> firstly, then apply the fix patch by Pedro Alves. I am not quite sure
> whether this way is suitable or not, though.
About that:
We avoid that approach, because it introduces a commit where
we know there is an issue. Although the issue is supposed to
get fixed right after, it still isn't great in the context of
"git bisect" for instance.
--
Joel