Hi everyone, Thank you so much for your support, it really means a lot to me. I look forward to contributing much more meaningfully beyond this small gitignore update.
Best regards, Arijit On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 3:49 AM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge <tschwi...@baylibre.com> writes: > > > Hi! > > > > On 2025-06-02T22:01:44+0530, Arijit Kumar Das > > <arijitkdgit.offic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Umm, I don't think so. I've been building crosses with gcc for decades. > >>> It should not be necessary, though it may sometimes be convenient. > > > > Right. Similarly to how it's, for example, documented on > > <https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/simtest-howto.html>, also the build > > instructions for GCC '--target=nvptx-none' that I gave Arijit use a > > combined tree (just GCC plus newlib). You might indeed consider that's > > just for convenience: let the top-level build system figure out at which > > stage to build newlib, instead of manually doing C-only GCC > > '--without-headers' etc., then build newlib with that, then rebuild full > > GCC, etc. > > > >>> If you feel there's a strong need, then you're going to have to make a > >>> better case than what you've done above. Specifically you'd need to > >>> start with why the standard cross build procedures don't work for nptx. > > > > I'd consider the combined tree build one "standard cross build procedure" > > (in addition to the "manual" one), but I also agree with Jeff that > > special-casing just newlib isn't the way to go, given there are indeed > > many more additional/optional packages that the top-level build system > > can handle, as mentioned in > > <https://inbox.sourceware.org/d463a70e-b586-40ce-b778-2e3d54b31...@gmail.com>. > > We list a bunch of them, just not all. > >> understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > Actually, with Git, it's easier: you 'git add' only the files that you > > care about, and just ignore 'newlib' in the top-level. > > I agree. > > That said, IMO the bar for NACKing a .gitignore change should be fairly > high and I think the request to add newlib here is pretty > reasonable. > > > > > > > Either way: Arijit, even if this one didn't get accepted, you've > > successfully executed the process: congratulations on your first GCC > > patch submission, on your own initiative -- way to go! :-D > > > > > > Grüße > > Thomas > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 7:47 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/2/25 3:01 AM, Arijit Kumar Das wrote: > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > When compiling GCC for targets like nvptx-none that require newlib, we > >>> > need to put newlib-cygwin/newlib in the root directory of the source > >>> > tree (either a copy or a symlink), which is then built by GCC when > >>> > targeting offload devices like the above. Changes made in newlib > >>> > shouldn't affect GCC, so I think we should include newlib in this case. > >>> Umm, I don't think so. I've been building crosses with gcc for decades. > >>> It should not be necessary, though it may sometimes be convenient. > >>> > >>> If you feel there's a strong need, then you're going to have to make a > >>> better case than what you've done above. Specifically you'd need to > >>> start with why the standard cross build procedures don't work for nptx. > > I'd asked about this before on IRC but didn't get an answer, but maybe > I'll file a bug and inquire about that because it's been bugging me for > some time for our own packaging of nvptx ;) > > >>> > >>> jeff > > thanks, > sam
