On 4/25/10, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > Martin Guy <martinw...@gmail.com> writes: > > > now that stage3 is over I'm thinking of updating the > > MaverickCrunch FPU fixes (currently for 4.3) and merging them but > > would appreciate some guidance. > > > > There are 26 patches in all and I can't expect anyone to understand > > them because they require a good understanding of the FPU and its > > hardware bugs (and there are a lot of them!) :) What's the best path? > > Create a branch, work there and then merge when done? > > > > I have done the copyright assignment stuff but don't have an account > > on gcc.gnu.org. They all affect files under config/arm/ apart from one > > testsuite fix and the docs. > > > For a backend specific patch like this, I would recommend contacting > the ARM backend maintainers directly to ask how they would prefer to > proceed. They can be found in the top level MAINTAINERS file: > > arm port Nick Clifton ni...@redhat.com > arm port Richard Earnshaw richard.earns...@arm.com > arm port Paul Brook p...@codesourcery.com
Hi I've had no reply from anyone - maybe everyone is hoping someone else do so. :) Of the three companies, redhat would be the most suitable, since the original unfinished port was done by them, and I guess ARM has no interest in making GCC work with non-ARM FPUs. The code they add/remove/change is pretty self-contained and doesn't impact the other code generation options. It just fixes the current implementation. Nick, are you willing to do the necessary? Since it just fixes existing code that never worked, all it requires from a maintainer is to check that it doesn't break code generation for other targets, which is easy to check automatically by testing a sample of targets and it's not hard to check by eye that the changes are only active when TARGET_MAVERICK. Cheers M
