[Bug 1725] Output section alignment fix

bugzilla-daemon at rtems.org bugzilla-daemon at rtems.org
Thu Dec 9 15:08:12 UTC 2010


--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> 2010-12-09 09:08:11 CST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > > Talk to upstream binutils and have them integrate it into binutils-2.21-branch.
> > > 
> > > I already sent Alan Modra an email, but since this is probably not a regression
> > > fix or documentation improvement I think that it is unlikely that this will be
> > > back ported to the 2.21 branch.
> > OK, then please explain why I should add it.
> [explanation]

OK, thanks for the explanation. Let's give this a bit of time to settle and
revisit it again in, say, 1-2 weeks.

ATM, it's not clear to me whether such kind of feature additions are
appropriate at this point in time, or if we should simply tell people 
"you are relying on a next generation binutils's feature, which is known to be
unusable in current binutils".

[Hint: At the very moment this patch will be applied to binutils-2_21 branch,
I will adopt it to rtems-binutils => Try to persuade upstream that this patch
is "vital to everybody"]

> > >  How do you want this next time?
> > All patches need changelog entries, esp. those to GCC, binutils and gdb,
> > because these are the only possibility to "legitimate" them.
> [...]
> Should the change log entry be part of the patch or part of the PR message?
I prefer patches in GNU style, i.e. a patch consisting of the concatenation of
a textual changelog entry + the actual patch.

Configure bugmail: https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.

More information about the bugs mailing list