[RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing

[Joseph Myers]

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