Hi David, I don't have write privileges for GCC repo. I have raised a request for write access and provided your email address as approver. Please approve the request.
Thanks, Sangamesh On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:17 AM David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > This revised patch is okay. > > You are listed in the FSF copyrights file for GCC GDB GLIBC BINUTILS, but > do you have write privileges for the GCC repo? You are not listed in > gcc/MAINTAINERS for write-after-approval. > > Thanks, David > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 10:49 AM swamy sangamesh <swamy.sangam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you all for the review and comments. >> >> David, I have tested the changes against the latest master and ran >> default test cases. >> I have also built and ran the default test cases on RHEL9.0 ppc64le. >> Please let me know if any other testing needs to be covered. >> >> Please find the latest patch attached. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 2:31 AM David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 2:17 PM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@airs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 12:25 PM Rainer Orth < >>>> r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi David, >>>> >> >>>> >> > No objection from me, but Ian is the maintainer of libiberty, so >>>> I'll >>>> >> defer >>>> >> > to him, especially about style and overall software engineering. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > The C23 change presumably will break on Alpha OSF/1 as well. Does >>>> GCC >>>> >> > still support OSF/1? It might be preferred to delete the block >>>> entirely >>>> >> > instead of #ifndef _AIX. >>>> >> >>>> >> GCC 4.7 was the last release to support Tru64 UNIX (ex-OSF/1). >>>> However, >>>> >> libiberty is also used outside of the toolchain, so that may affect >>>> the >>>> >> decision. >>>> >> >>>> >> However, IMO the Tru64 UNIX support can go for good now. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi, Rainer >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for taking a look and commenting. >>>> > >>>> > It seems we both agree that it would be better to remove the entire >>>> block >>>> > defining _NO_PROTO because both of the systems are no longer >>>> supported. >>>> > >>>> > I'll give Ian the opportunity to comment. >>>> >>>> Looks good to me. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>> >>> Sangamesh, >>> >>> Can you respin and test a revised patch that removes the conditional >>> _NO_PROTO definition instead of adding #ifndef _AIX? I think that is what >>> Rainer and I would prefer because neither of the OSes is supported and we >>> don't need a fragile work-around. >>> >>> Thanks, David >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks & Regards, >> Sangamesh >> > -- Thanks & Regards, Sangamesh
