From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from winkin.phpwebhosting.com (unknown [64.239.40.196]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0409AAC662 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:21:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 17678 invoked by uid 508); 28 Jul 2002 22:21:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gentoo.org) (128.227.97.173) by winkin.phpwebhosting.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2002 22:21:35 -0000 Message-ID: <3D446D30.4000408@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:16:16 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020725 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2 References: <004801c23664$61af67b0$0a01a8c0@neptune> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 336a7e89-e325-42e1-baeb-40da896743ec X-Archives-Hash: b87c70328aed94c16fa4dda28395c2b3 Michael Mattsson wrote: >Just curious. Who are you sending patches to? Gentoo scripters, or >independent QT/GTK developers? >What kind of patches are you refering to? Gcc3.2 or kernel patches? >Why arent any patches in the cvs tree? How many questions can I fit >onto one paragraph? > >I'm kind of confused as I thought that pretty much all gentoo related >code were script based. If this is not the case, then is it possible to >get a list of gentoo specific modules that may be affected by future GCC >upgrades? I ask this because I tend to use the latest GCC CVS >snapshots for my development (currently gcc 3.1.3). > > > >Michael Mattsson >Kyrana Inc. >michel@kyrana.com > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >> >> > > > >>3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with >>the C++ ABI >>now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping >>straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from >>2.95 to 3.1 >>and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to >>3.2. As one of >>the gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2 Gentoo guys I support this plan (was one >>of the ones >>calling for it among the devs) and I'm working hard with all >>the other >>guys to send upstream patches to developers to make sure their >>applications are ready for the new gcc-3.2 platform. (this >>will benefit >>all distros). >> >>-- >>Doug Goldstein >>Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1) >>Gentoo Linux >>http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >gentoo-dev mailing list >gentoo-dev@gentoo.org >http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev > > > > Most of my patches are actually in the Gentoo source tree. When you emerge a package and you see a line that it's patching the source code right after unpacking the source... that's possibly one of the gcc-3.1 patches. As far as where I send the patches to... I go to the maintainer's website and e-mail it to him/her and also explain all my changes. My patches aren't to specific Qt/GTK code because 99% of that code is fine. It's all C++ syntaxing and what not really. And if you wanna see lots of kernel hacks at patches by us Gentoo people... try mjc-sources. Make sure to pick your architecture with (3.1) at the end if you're using gcc-3.1. -- Doug Goldstein Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1) Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/