Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:39:35 -0500
From: Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Earl Chew <earl_chew AT agilent DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Revised precompiled header support on cygwin
In-Reply-To: <41807E89.3050103@agilent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0410280919050.2868@fordpc.vss.fsi.com>
References: <41802878 DOT 8070208 AT agilent DOT com> <20041028013026 DOT GA5371 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <41807E89 DOT 3050103 AT agilent DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Earl Chew wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > If you have a patch that's ready to go, I'll review it.  If it isn't
> > ready to go then there's not anything for me to do as far as I can tell.
> >
> > If you're asking me to work on it, then that is something I don't have
> > time to do.
>
> I'm asking whether I should be submitting a patch against 3.4.1 or
> 3.4.2.
>
> Cygwin seems to be at 3.4.1.
>
> The gcc folks seem to be at 3.4.2 or later.

I haven't reviewed your patch in detail, but let me give you my
impressions of protocol.

Since you claim this patch needs more work before it can be accepted into
the FSF gcc source tree, then your only option prior to that work is to
lobby the Cygwin gcc maintainer, here in this list, to make this a Cygwin
local patch.  Cygwin maintainers however, generally prefer not to maintain
local patches unless they are critical bug fixes because of the amount of
work involved.  They also generally prefer to push those patches upstream
as soon as possible.

Given this, and my experience trying to do something similar (I have
patches to support DWARF 2 accepted into FSF gcc 4.0, but not yet in any
Cygwin gcc release), I suggest you first make the patch acceptable to the
FSF gcc maintainers.  Then, it will be easier to lobby the Cygwin gcc
maintainer to include it.  Or, more likely, you may just have to wait for
the trickle down effect (like I am).

Note also that only "safe" bug fixes for regressions are usually applied
to gcc branch (ie. dot) releases.  Your non regression patch would
probably be best suited for gcc 4.0, or later given I think it is in
feature freeze right now.

If you can persuade the Cygwin gcc maintainer to incorporate your patch,
then you will have to work with him on which version he would like the
patch for.  CGF is no longer the Cygwin gcc maintainer.  He is, however,
the Cygwin gcc port maintainer for the FSF gcc tree.

Does any of this help you understand where CGF is coming from?

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot...

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/