Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMO the situation here is the same as with current soft-fp > situation. The library should be considered as imported from upstream, > and the decisions w.r.t formatting are inherited from the upstream. In > soft-fp case, functions don't have prototypes, and we (as in gcc > developers) can't do nothing about that. > > In contrast with soft-fp, libbid library doesn't produce any warnings... > > Although not explicitly said, the fixes should be sent upstream (and > then "imported" from upstream), at least this is the case with all > other "foreign" libraries.
The situation seems somewhat different to me, since soft-fp is being inherited from another free software project. In fact, a GNU project. It doesn't mean that we can work that way, but I would like these issues to be out on the table, discussed, and documented. Ian
