On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:02, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > If you make sure each individual commit still builds splitting is OK, though > technically I see no need for splitting. > > Go for it! >
Bootstrapped with --enable-languages=all both before and after, and ran all front-end testsuites on x86_64-linux-gnu, and saw no new regressions. So I'm going for it. Just rebased on trunk and running just the D testsuite one last time for my own sanity and committing. Thanks. -- Iain
