From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA92577E87 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id w2ALYIcm016109 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:34:21 GMT Message-ID: <1520717657.10851.169.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Martin Jansa Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:34:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1520639372-12916-1-git-send-email-juro.bystricky@intel.com> <6E51916E4A1F32428260031F4C7CD2B64C66B245@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180310074659.GA7868@jama> <1520706468.10851.164.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.3 at dan X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: "jurobystricky@hotmail.com" , "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [morty][PATCH v2] gcc6.4 upgrade X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:34:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 22:04 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > Feel free to ignore my feedback. > > I didn't mean it as strong objection to get this merged as-is. > > It was rather an advice for next time or in case another version is > sent (e.g. with that missing patch from Khem) and Juro decides to > rework it in order to save himself some time later when preparing the > changes for pyro and rocko (as he said in the e-mail that he plans to > prepare). It shouldn't be too difficult to rework anyway, because > Andre already has the cherry-picks for morty and Juro can do just > rebase of his change on top of that to get those new patches in > separate commit. Juro's mail reply was a bit messed up with formatting but that missing arm patch appeared to cause an internal compiler error when compiling valgrind for x86-64 and I suspect that is why its missing. If we do want to consider that one I'd probably make it a separate issue. I can't really merge anything due to our backports policy until we have at least the pyro patches sorted. I'm still torn on which way to go but if someone can pull together a good set of patches for the various branches I would take it. I'm also pretty sure Juro will be fine if someone wants to break that patch up. Cheers, Richard