On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Indeed - I'll give it a shot. Richard. > > -- > H.J.
