Bug 23529: Add support for gcc's attribute abi_tag (needed for compatibility with gcc 5's libstdc++)

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM Stefan Bühler via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> it seems moderation didn't approve the phabricator mails for D12834.
> (I have no intention to be subscribed to the list just to get
> phabricator mails through. For now I am subscribed but disabled
> mail delivery -.-)
>
> So the patch is available at http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834
>
> I also added a test case which shows that substitution is not
> working correctly right now.
>
> regards,
> Stefan
>
> PS: I think contributing to llvm is way to complex. First I attatch
> patches in the bug tracker, and it takes ages to get a reaction - and
> them I'm simply told to send to the ML. Then you want me to use
> phabricator, and then I get no feedback again - because moderation
> blocked emails from an internal system, and it seems nobody is looking
> at phabricator directly.
> This is not something I look forward to go through again; my
> motiviation to contribute further is rather low.
>

I'm very sorry you had a bad experience.

That patches attached to bugs don't get answered is an unfortunate issue;
the problem is that most patches are when sent out first not of a quality
that they can be directly submitted, and require significant work (this is
especially true for larger packages), which is why we have a code review
process set up via the list. Could we perhaps help that with better
documentation somewhere? Where would you have looked first?

That the phab email was blocked without getting moderator approval is
surprising to me. I'm going to figure out who moderates the email list
these days, and why that didn't get unstuck.
Also, note that phab is generally not required (but it will often get you
code reviews faster, as especially large patches are harder to review for
some people).


> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:36:19 -0700
> David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you mind sticking abi-tag.patch in phabricator:
> > http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html ?
> > Your patch is big enough that it would make it a little easier for me
> > to review.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Stefan Bühler via cfe-commits <
> > cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've been working on #23529.
> > >
> > > The abi tag mangling implemented by gcc is horrible, but I think my
> > > patch covers most of the incompatibilities with gcc5.
> > >
> > > There might be some bugs with substitutions, although I have to
> > > come up with a test case for that to see what gcc does...
> > >
> > > Test cases comparing gcc and patched clang++:
> > > http://files.stbuehler.de/test-itanium-mangle.html
> > > (generated with http://files.stbuehler.de/test-itanium-mangle.sh,
> > > also attached)
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150928/8645278c/attachment-0001.html>