http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com> 2012-11-18 18:47:19 UTC --- >> Are all upstream changes considered reviewed and automatically approved for >> gcc repo? all upstream changes are pre- or post- reviewed, so my answer here is "yes". >> That's not acceptable. We don't want to have to go through LLVM to fix >> issues in GCC, especially for the platforms that LLVM doesn't support, i.e. most of them. I've got your point, but please understand mine: if the trees go too much out of sync we (the asan team) will lose control over one of the copies (gcc). It will mean that some one else (not us) will have to work on asan in gcc. Maybe that's not bad, but I don't want it. Syncing the trees in the presence of difference in the comment headers make the syncing task a tiny bit more challenging. I hope that at some point when we get enough contributions to libsanitizer from the GCC community, we will be able to unify the headers by saying "This is part of LLVM and GCC projects". WDYT? As I understood from previous e-mails, there are libraries with similar problems in the gcc tree. What are the solutions there? >> Introducing such regressions is acceptable, provided that they can be quickly fixed by the target maintainers. It's great that such regressions is acceptable, but if there is an infrastructure that allows us to know about possible regressions before the commit (aka try bots), I'd like to know.
