On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 15:59 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley<a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>>> > >>>> It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot > >>>> review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very > >>>> distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because other, busy people > >>>> don't do something that appears obvious. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm sure you do, but I find it far more distasteful to have a willing > >>> volunteer blocked for so long under such circumstances. This is not > >>> the way that we should be doing things. > >> > >> > >> Productive, helpful suggestions on how to improve the situation are > >> welcome. > > > > > > Clearly, insisting that only one of the few global maintainers can > > review the port is a problem. Global maintainers don't scale. There > > is no reason why the maintainer of another port can't review this > > port. It doesn't necessarily need an global maintainer. > > > > While a technical review of the port would undoubtedly be helpful, it > > does not make any sense to block the ARC port until it receives one: > > this is an unbounded wait. > > > > If there aren't any middle-end changes, the consequence of an ARC port > > that's not good is at worst an ARC port in GCC that is not good. Even > > if there are middle-end changes, these can be reviewed separately. > > > > The downside of continuing to block this submission for another year > > is obvious, and is, I submit, worse than the downside of accepting a > > port that still needs some work. > > The main reason for technical review of a port is to avoid that it uses > deprecated mechanisms and thus blocks removal of them. Like > accepting a port that uses target macros when a corresponding > target hook exists, or accepting a port that uses reload instead of LRA, > or any other partial transition thing we had this matrix for somewhere > somewhen.
Presumably this page: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Partial_Transitions Out of interest, is that page itself up-to-date? The last update was on 2012-02-17. Thanks Dave
