On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Aleksandar Rakic wrote: > Public > > Hi, > > > So I'm not at all concerned about the mips specific bits of this patch. > > After all, they only affect mips ports and the changes seem sensible. > > They would need a ChangeLog entry to go forward through. > > > What is concerning is the config.ml change which has no comments about > > what it's doing or justification in the cover letter. > > > Similarly it's not clear why we need a blob of mips specific code in > > configure.ac and the files autogenerated from that. > > > Jeff > > I would like to inform you that the version 2 of this patch is available > at the following link: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/677811.html > > Could you please let us know if you have any comments > on this patch?
Let's start with the user-visible feature. You seem to be adding a new configure option --with-multi-buildlist for building GCC. So this needs to be documented in gcc/doc/install.texi. I suggest sending a patch that *only* deals with the target-independent aspects of that user-visible feature, with none of the MIPS-specific changes. Ensure it provides full documentation in gcc/doc/install.texi, sufficient for someone building GCC to understand when and how to use the feature. And ensure there is a carefully-written, self-contained commit message that explains the feature, its design and the rationale for that design, and how the implementation relates to the design. Then we can iterate on that feature and the documentation for it. (Commit messages are just as important to review as the patch content.) Any MIPS-specific application of that feature can come later. (If MIPS-specific issues form part of the rationale for the design of the target-independent feature, of course you can reference them when explaining the rationale in the commit message.) -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
