This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [patch, mips] Fix parallel build on MIPS
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:02:15 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch, mips] Fix parallel build on MIPS
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cfe7a72d-3a40-48b3-82d9-85df5aa6c513 at BAMAIL02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <201309282309 dot 29176 dot vapier at gentoo dot org> <1380559646 dot 5988 dot 85 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <201309301350 dot 42932 dot vapier at gentoo dot org>
On 09/30/2013 01:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 30 September 2013 12:47:26 Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 23:09 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 24 September 2013 13:09:18 Steve Ellcey wrote:
This patch I sent out fixes parallel make of the install target on
go for it
Is that an official approval? I don't see your name in
newlib/MAINTAINERS and I was assuming that libgloss had the same
mantainers as newlib and that I would need an OK from Jeff or Corinna
to do the checkin (since there is no MIPS CPU maintainer listed). Or
are the rules for libgloss different? I don't want to step on any toes.
for cpu-specific stuff that Jeff/Corinna don't track (which mips seems to fall
under), people tend to take care of merging. i don't know if there's an
official policy on the matter, but that's the status quo i've observed over the
last few years.
Patch checked in. In this case, I was just slow to respond.
For cpu-specific stuff, in most cases, I wait for experts/users of the
platform to discuss and arrive at consensus to ensure a cpu-specific
change for one variant doesn't break another. If there is someone who
has historically made good contributions, I usually take their patch if
no one pipes up.
-- Jeff J.