https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #11 from Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10) > (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #1) > > Created attachment 15798 [details] > > Implements -Wunused-objects warning for C++. > > Patches need to be properly tested and submitted. See > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics: > _Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps > > The few people that have the power to approve patches are very busy and they > very rarely read bugzilla. The bug database has an "enhancement" type, so obviously, it is to be used for submitting enhancements. Why would you duplicate effort by implementing a different process for tracking submissions? In June 2008, when I submitted this, here is how the above Wiki page looked: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted?action=recall&rev=19 There is no mention of any special process at that time. Please "grandfather" old submissions that were posted to Bugzilla before the special submission process was described in the Wiki. >Patches attached to bugzilla are usually understood as proof-of-concept or >work-in-progress, not actual submissions. I deployed that change to large team of developers, and the toolchain with that change went to customers also. The warning caught problems that were fixed and didn't appear to break anything. So yes, actual submission. Today, I no longer care about upstreaming code to OSS projects because of prima donna attitudes like this. It's just too much effort dealing with the barriers. In my own projects, I accept good patches, even if they are written on a grease-stained napkin. If I lead by example, maybe others will follow.
