From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Jan 13 01:10:41 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D19A6E101; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:10:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (mx1.scaleengine.net [209.51.186.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BD810FF; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:10:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [192.168.1.10]) (Authenticated sender: allanjude.freebsd@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59C1AD9B5; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: svn commit: r293724 - in head/sys/boot: arm64/libarm64 common efi/boot1 efi/fdt efi/include efi/include/arm64 efi/libefi efi/loader efi/loader/arch/amd64 efi/loader/arch/arm efi/loader/arch/arm64 i... To: NGie Cooper , Ian Lepore References: <201601120217.u0C2HdBC089684@repo.freebsd.org> <1452645668.46848.34.camel@freebsd.org> <56959DA7.9050206@freebsd.org> <1452646442.46848.37.camel@freebsd.org> Cc: Steven Hartland , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" From: Allan Jude Message-ID: <5695A40C.6050306@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:10:36 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:10:41 -0000 On 2016-01-12 20:05, NGie Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: > ... >> For several reasons. The fact that gcc isn't the default compiler >> doesn't mean that it's okay for code to not compile with gcc; it's >> still a supported compiler for arm. > > Agreed. It also makes things messier when MFCing changes if it doesn't > work with gcc. > Thanks, > -NGie > If it is a supported compiler, maybe we need a tinderbox option that compiles ARM with gcc, to catch cases like this. -- Allan Jude