DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> writes: >> [build] More --enable-threads cleanup >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00059.html >> >> This might well be obvious. > > Also, we usually leave those up to the target maintainers, since > they're target specific. But if it's just a correlation between the
True, but finding maintainers for obsolete/removed ports might be difficult :-) > script and a list of source file options, go for it. I did, thanks. >> Besides, it would be helpful if a build maintainer could have a look at >> >> [build] Move Solaris 2 startup files to toplevel libgcc >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00098.html >> >> either to state that I don't need approval or to make suggestings for >> improvements. This is not yet the final patch, but the remainder is >> tuning. > > We normally let target maintainers manage anything in the build that's > target-specific. However, you've mixed in target patches with I know and usually act on that rule. I wasn't asking so much for approval but rather for suggestions for the build side of things. > target-independent patches. I have no problem with you checking in > your own target changes, but if you could split out the rest for > review, it would make it easier on us. I can try if the build maintainers need that. So far, I can only see use of the new generic libgcc/config/t-crtfm on sparc targets other than Solaris, and $< instead of pathnames in libgcc/config/i386/t-crtfm, gld detection and substitution of cpu_type. > Also, mention if you tested it on any ix86 non-solaris platform > (linux, bsd, etc). I didn't since apart from the t-crtfm stuff (which has been tested on Solaris already), there's nothing that could affect them. Thanks. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
