On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 15:06, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 19:21 +0200, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 15:48, Richard Sandiford > > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> writes: > > > > I'm just going to post the diff since the original here, just to > > > > show > > > > what's been done since review comments. > > > > > > > > I think I've covered all that's been addressed, except for the > > > > couple > > > > of notes about the quadratic parts (though I think one of them is > > > > actually O(N^2)). I've raised bug reports on improving them > > > > later. > > > > > > > > I've also rebased them against trunk, so there's a couple new > > > > things > > > > present that are just to support build. > > > > > > Thanks, this is OK when the frontend is accepted in principle > > > (can't remember where things stand with that). > > > > > > > As discussed, the front-end has already been approved by the SC. > > > > I'm not sure if there's anything else further required, or if any > > final review needs to be done. > > > > Thanks. > > I'm wondering what the state of this is [1] > > Iain: are all of the patches individually approved, with the necessary > issues fixed? >
I've posted diffs a few days back that cover all requested changes. > IIRC, the front-end as a whole was approved, pending approval of all of > the individual patches (URL?). If that's done, then presumably this is > good to go in - unless there was still some license discussion pending? > I have on tab responses from each patch, from what I see, they have all been OK'd. 02: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01432.html 03: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00734.html 04: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00928.html 05: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00592.html 06: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00609.html 07: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00955.html 08: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01270.html 09: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01264.html 10: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01269.html 12: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00735.html 14: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00970.html 1, 11, and 13 are DMD, Druntime, and Phobos, which are mirrored from upstream dlang repositories. I spoke with Richard Stallman a couple days after this years GNU Cauldron, and he said there is no problem with regards to their license. > I take it that you've already got your contributor paperwork in place, > right? I see from your maintainers commit that you presumably have svn > access. > > I'm not a global reviewer or steering committee member though; would be > nice to get a "go for it" from one of those. Richard is a global > reviewer. > Yes, I was going to wait a couple days to make sure that there's no objection, before pressing on with it. Having a "go for it" from one of the reviewers would be nice though. > I'm not sure if it should be one big mega-commit, or split out the same > way you split things out for review. > I think splitting makes sense, though not necessarily in 14 pieces, there are only a few distinct parts. - D language front-end. - D standard and runtime libraries. - D language testsuite - D language support in GCC proper - D language support in GCC targets - Toplevel configure/makefile patches that add front-end and library to the build The first three can be squashed into one commit, as it's only adding new files. > Thanks for all your work on this > Dave > > [1] I've been checking the git mirror every few hours to look for a > massive commit from you, if I'm honest :) Oops, I didn't realise there were some who are so eager. :-) -- Iain
