On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:45, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > >> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? > >> > > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html > >> > > >> > CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers. > >> > >> None of the build system maintainers can approve gcc.c changes. And those > >> can > >> be approved only by either a global reviewer, or by Joseph. That's why I > >> haven't replied anything up to now. > > > > I'm thinking of it as a build-system patch with a driver bit - where build > > system maintainers need to decide the general principle of the > > desirability of the feature and what all of the implementation outside > > gcc.c should look like, before it makes sense to review the details of the > > gcc.c bit. > > Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way. I cannot really > express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the > configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather from the > thread that you are fine with that as well.
Given the build system changes, the gcc.c changes are OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
