On 24 April 2010 14:12, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > I can have my own patched version of GCC that does what I want without > signing anything.
Then we change that code and your patch is broken. Or your patch has a bug and you never find out. Or we decide to remove something essential for your patch to work because we think nobody is using it. > I also just don't need the abuse. GCC, while not the most of hostile of > open source projects out there, it's up there. Manuel López-Ibáñez's > unjustified hostility towards Michael Witten in this thread is just a > small example. Perhaps his intention was not trolling but it strongly felt like that given past behaviour. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-01/msg00304.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00542.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00583.html It wasn't my intention to be hostile just to state the obvious: If you feel gcc is doomed, why are you still in this list repeating this mantra over and over? does it make you feel better? how is that not trolling? But I have also found previous good posts, so it was a mistake from my part to assume he was trolling. > Finally, it's also a lot of work. Just building GCC can be pain, having > to find upto date versions of a growing list of math libraries that > don't benefit me in the slightest way. Running the test suite takes a > long time, so even trivial patches require a non-trivial amount of work. Everything is already setup for you here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm I have a script that allows me to do the following in a single step: gccfarming cleanup gccfarming bootstrap gccfarming patch PATCH=mypatch.diff gccfarming bootstrap compare_tests clean.log mypatch.log It takes computer time, yes, but I am not in a hurry. If I were, I would use one of the computers with 8 or 16 cores. Cheers, Manuel.
