This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
- To: dje at transmeta dot com
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com, sid at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:47:03 -0500
- Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4><20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au><1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4><200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks.
> People should be able to police their own ports.
> gcc port maintainers don't have to get approval for changes to their
> ports. I don't understand why this would be any different.
Because cgen feeds binutils, gdb, and sid. Which one of those has the
port maintainers responsible for cgen? What happens if a binutils
maintainer changes cgen, and unknowingly breaks sid or gdb?
> But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better place to
> provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints about warnings :-).
Better than sid? Better than gdb? OTOH we've talked about moving the
port-specific files out of cgen and into their own toplevel directory,
which would remove this issue anyway.
But, let me make the formal request anyway. gdb and sid cc'd.
Cgen folks (and others)... would it be acceptable to change the cgen
approval rules to allow people who could otherwise approve
port-specific patches in binutils, gdb, or sid, to be allowed to
approve port-specific changes in cgen as well?