On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/01/2013 09:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Bennett >> <jeremy.benn...@embecosm.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> You've probably seen that Joern Rennecke (amylaar) has been pinging >>> repeatedly for help reviewing the ARC port: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02072.html >>> >>> Joern is approved as a maintainer, and the tests have been reviewed and >>> approved (thanks to Mike Stump). However approximately a year since the >>> original submission, after making various changes suggested at that time, >>> the port itself still awaits review of acceptance. >>> >>> We are in the curious position of a port that has a maintainer and testsuite >>> accepted, but no actual port. >>> >>> What can we do to move this to completion for 4.9 stage 1? It is not the >>> smallest port (the ARC is a complex reconfigurable processor family), but it >>> has been in use for a long time, causes no regression errors in other >>> targets, and has been submitted by a long-standing contributor to GCC. >>> >>> Advice on how to move this forward much appreciated. >> >> From a RM point of view we can accept a new port also during stage3 if >> the required middle-end changes are minimal. >> >> That said, GCC is still mostly volunteer driven in this area (I don't know >> of any company sponsoring review of ports that are not their own ...). >> Also I guess the only reviewers that are able to approve the port technically >> are global reviewers (and maybe the port maintainers themselves for >> port specific parts?!). Clarification from the SC would be most welcome >> here, >> also ideas on how to address this (recurring) issue. > > I can't see the point of insisting on technicalities here. Joern is very > experienced, capable of maintaining the port over time, and it as long > as there aren't middle-end changes it won't break anything.
Well, I want clarification as of whether assigning maintainership of the port is equivalent to getting approval for checking in the port specific parts. Which _I_ would think is reasonable (for the maintainer being Joern even more so). Richard. > Andrew. > >
