On 3/1/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see why: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just been committed.
(or the target removed) It is not, just nobody cares about that target any more, we have lots of those targets hanging around. Zack created the patch to be able to remove the old fashon code. Really I would say if a target maintainers does not respond in a year for a patch which is to update the target to the new infrastructure and no other patches are committed in that year, the target should be removed because no one is willing to maintain it. This is slightly different from any other part of GCC really. In fact the only patch that was committed for h8300 (besides just normal maintaince work with the rest of the compiler) last year was to the target for compiling on hosts where HWI was 64bits and that was committed as obvious.
Only so much time in the day. I occasionally do comment on them.
Right and maintainers have so much time in a day to comment on patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00052.html
The ping^2 and ping^3 were within a week of each other.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00051.html
Likewise (well 8 days).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00048.html
Likewise. A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
