On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/27/2015 12:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> >>>> HJ, Thanks for committing the change even when we were discussing the >>>> change >>> >>> >>> This is what I'm primarily concerned about. >>> >>> Bernd's message was pretty clear in my mind: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02861.html >>> >>> It was conditional approval based on no other target using -fno-plt and >>> agreement from the x86 maintainers. >>> >>> HJ replied that aarch64 uses -fno-plt: >>> >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02865.html >>> >>> >>> And then apparently HJ committed the patch. >>> >>> >>> commit 47b727e5ec3f6f4f0a30ee899adce80185ad6999 >>> Author: hjl <hjl@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> >>> Date: Tue Oct 27 14:29:31 2015 +0000 >>> >>> When reviewers conditionally approve a patch, the conditions need to be >>> satisfied before a patch can be committed. Ignoring the conditions seems >>> like a significant breech of trust to me. >>> >>> HJ, why did you commit the patch given it didn't meet the conditions >>> Bernd >>> set forth for approval? >>> >> >> Sorry for the trouble my patch caused. The bug is in aarch64 backend. > > You didn't answer my question. > > I asked why you committed a patch given it didn't meet the conditions Bernd > set forth for approval. I didn't ask anything about the bug itself. > > So I'll ask again, why did you commit a patch which you clearly knew did not > meet the conditions Bernd set forth for approval?
I believed that aarch64 backend didn't properly handle -fno-plt, which shouldn't block my patch. -- H.J.
