Toolchain patches

Toolchain patches

[Ilya Volynets]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey people.
As we all well know, toolchain is one of major issues for Linux/MIPS.
Probably the worst one. Personally I had just gone through getting it
at least semi-straight, and blood, sweat, tears, and peaces of raw flesh
are still lying arround. I don't think I'd like my enemies to go through this.
Now, one of the reasons for this is that maintainers of some important
tools (like gcc :-) are little bit too concentrated on Inhell architecture.
They do not apply our patches, they do not fix bugs reported by us,
and in general hurt our feelings :). Of course we could start maintaining our
own trees for respective tools, but unfortunately we simply do not have
manpower right now for that (and many people would give lots of other
good arguments against this). So, I decided to put together at least
a page with collection of patches to toolchain, that didn't go into tree
to make life at least a bit easier.
Send comments, patches, and anything else, you see appropriate to me.
I hope to get initial page up in couple of days.
	Ilya.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjsVHHoACgkQtKh84cA8u2k+rQCeLHzpSVBroqru0g95cyo5uJbB
askAnRmYdw28hSC06Sp/aYk1AbbTJzCX
=a6hH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Toolchain patches

[Thiemo Seufer]

Ilya Volynets wrote:
[snip]
>Now, one of the reasons for this is that maintainers of some important
>tools (like gcc :-) are little bit too concentrated on Inhell architecture.
>They do not apply our patches, they do not fix bugs reported by us,

I don't know about gcc, but with binutils I haven't such problems
so far. Which of Your patches were rejected (and for what reason)?


Thiemo

Re: Toolchain patches

[Ilya Volynets]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 30 May 2001 09:43, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Ilya Volynets wrote:
> [snip]
> >Now, one of the reasons for this is that maintainers of some important
> >tools (like gcc :-) are little bit too concentrated on Inhell architecture.
> >They do not apply our patches, they do not fix bugs reported by us,
> 
> I don't know about gcc, but with binutils I haven't such problems
> so far.
That's why I didn't mention them. GCC is my primary concern now.
> Which of Your patches were rejected (and for what reason)?
I'm not talking about myself, but if you mention it to Keith, for example,
you'll hear a lot of loud sound :).
In general I think collecting stuff that floats around into one central place
will be useful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjsVL+0ACgkQtKh84cA8u2lAKgCfXYgHdrJ3APYKr8vuZhAFQ9N7
fDMAoNv5rpUtkE5iZ1wMqCTjVGjjdbyR
=gik0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Toolchain patches

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 10:37:46AM -0700, Ilya Volynets wrote:

> That's why I didn't mention them. GCC is my primary concern now.
> > Which of Your patches were rejected (and for what reason)?
> I'm not talking about myself, but if you mention it to Keith, for example,
> you'll hear a lot of loud sound :).

He just loves to express his appreciation of The Evil Empire (TM) :-)

> In general I think collecting stuff that floats around into one central place
> will be useful.

Alot of those patches are not suitable for public consumption or require
additional modifications etc.  For the casual user who doesn't want to
dive into system internal too deep they're generally not recommended.

  Ralf

The Evil Empire (TM) is a trademark of Ronald Raygun Industries.