On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: > >> I was unable to build a native powerpc compiler. I checked for >> build_target_node and build_optimization_node throughout and changed >> rs6000 because it had references. I did not realize >> function_specific_save and function_specific_restore have to be >> changed. Sorry for breaking it. > > As Mike replied, gcc110 is available. Richard Biener's approval was > dependent upon successful bootstrap and passing the regression > testsuite, which you did not even attempt, nor did you try to build a > cross-compiler.
This is an oversight. I agree that it is better to test on multiple platforms for large changes like this. In the past, Sri has been very attentive to any fallouts due to his changes, so is this time. >You also did not contact the rs6000 maintainer (me) > nor the last person who changed the code in question (Mike). You can count on us to send more patches your way for testing in the future :) > > How is Google going to change its patch commit policies to ensure that > this does not happen again? > I am not sure what you mean here. We only have one policy to follow for trunk GCC -- GCC's own policy. thanks, David > Thanks, David
