On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:04 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Well, it regresses against 4.8, so it still is a P1 regression. >>> >>> Does anyone care? >> >> >> Well, you’re one of the maintainers of libsanitizer for GCC, so if you do >> not care about regressions in your code, it makes little sense for GCC (the >> whole project) to keep libsanitizer. >> >> I’ve posted this regression a month ago, it was not addressed. I’m not sure >> under what specific arrangement libsanitizer was added to GCC, but in >> general there is a responsibility of maintainers not to break bootstrap in >> their code. Yes, it’s a cost, and if you are not willing to do it, why did >> you contribute in the first place? >> >> Or is it a “hit and run” approach to maintainership? > > I believe this is a case where the GCC project gets more benefit from > libsanitizer than libsanitizer gets from being part of the GCC > project. We should work with the libsanitizer developers to make this > work, not just push everything back on them. >
I think libsanitizer should be disabled automatically if kernel or glibc are too old. BTW, fixincludes should fix the bad kernel header files from SuSE. -- H.J.
