RE: [wwwdocs] Update links to C++ ABI

[Mitchell, Mark]

Gerald --

I think that the GitHub address is more canonical at this point, so I would 
recommend that.  That said, I would expect the codesourcery.com address to work 
"forever"; Mentor IT has set up permanent redirects for addresses from that 
domain.

Thank you,

--
Mark Mitchell
Mentor Graphics
mark_mitch...@mentor.com
+1 (510) 354-7337


> -Original Message-
> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:ger...@pfeifer.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 10:02 AM
> To: Ian Lance Taylor; Mitchell, Mark
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jonathan Wakely; g...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Update links to C++ ABI
> 
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> It used to be http://sourcery.mentor.com/public/cxx-abi/ as of
> >> lately, and now redirects to http://mentorembedded.github.com/cxx-
> abi/ .
> >>
> >> I went ahead and updated all our references per the patch below.
> > I don't think that is wise.  The document itself promises that the
> > permanent URL is http://codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/ .  No other URL is
> > promised to be permanent.  I think we should link to the permanent
> URL
> > as long as it continues to work.
> 
> Well, the document itself also carries "Revised 20 March 2001" in line
> 2. ;-)
> 
> Mark, any recommendation from your side?  Is it fine to refer to the
> new mentorembedded.github.com address?
> 
> (Linking to a page that redirects makes verifying the accuracy of links
> tricky.)
> 
> Gerald

RE: Continue strict-volatile-bitfields fixes

[Mitchell, Mark]

> > Bernd provided a fix here about 1 year ago:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00217.html.
> > But it is pending to trunk. Here are my humble opinions and hopefully
> > we can revive it:

 > Yeah. At the time I thought the objections were a bit pointless. At
> worst, the added code in some of the target ports is irrelevant, as
> admitted by DJ later in the thread, but nothing stops port maintainers
> from adding code to disallow -fabi-version for their port. Since none
> do
> this (AFAIK), I still believe it's best to make all ports behave
> identically with this patch.
> 
> So, I still think this patch is the best way to go forward, and it does
> fix incorrect code generation. Would appreciate an OK.

I agree.  I remember reviewing this patch, and being disappointed that it 
wasn't included.  Given my lack of day-to-day involvement in GCC development, 
I'm not willing to simply say "check it in", but I would encourage reviewers to 
accept the patch.

Mark

RE: Continue strict-volatile-bitfields fixes

[Mitchell, Mark]

> > So, I still think this patch is the best way to go forward, and it
> does
> > fix incorrect code generation. Would appreciate an OK.
> 
> Ping.

If you don't hear any objections within a week, please proceed.

Thank you,

Mark