Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:

(The entries below here are in the second list in sourcebuild.texi - for
those integrated into GCC CVS, which really means mainline GCC CVS.  So
some of them aren't appropriate to do yet, though some can still be done
on the branch.)

>     * At least one GNATS category for bugs in that front end and runtime 
> libraries. This category needs to be mentioned in gcc/gccbug.in, and in 
> gnats.html on the GCC web site, as well as being added to the GNATS 
> database.
> 
> TODO -- what would be the appropriate name?  We should avoid confusion 
> so that our bugs don't end up in the category for g77.

Only relevant at this point if you want tree-ssa bug reports against G95
to go into GCC Bugzilla.

>     * Normally, one or more maintainers of that front end listed in 
> MAINTAINERS.
> 
> Paul, Toon and myself (when I finally contribute some patch again myself 
> :))?

This could always be done on the mainline MAINTAINERS - no need to branch
that file.

>     * Mentions on the GCC web site in index.html and frontends.html, 
> with any relevant links on readings.html. (Front ends that are not an 
> official part of GCC may also be listed on frontends.html, with relevant 
> links.)
> 
> TODO -- we could still mention Andy-g95, so this may be political...

index.html is definitely for when it gets to mainline - frontends.html and
readings.html for now.

>     * A news item on index.html, and possibly an announcement on the 
> gcc-announce@gcc.gnu.org mailing list.
> 
> TODO?  Just on index.html would be enough IMHO, or maybe not even that.  
> Let's not blow horns and whistles over a half-finished front end.  
> Suggestions?

This is for when it gets to mainline.

>     * The front end's manuals should be mentioned in 
> maintainer-scripts/update_web_docs (see Texinfo Manuals) and the online 
> manuals should be linked to from onlinedocs/index.html.
> 
> TODO -- but we do not have much of a manual yet.  I was actually kinda 
> hoping Steven Kargl and maybe Katherine would like to help with that 
> (hint :)), being native speakers with American spelling.  I plan to work 
> on this as long as I'm unable to build gcc's on my "new" computer.

You can always make the changes to update_web_docs on the branch, it just
isn't much use (and the checked out directory on gcc.gnu.org would still
need updating manually when tree-ssa goes to mainline).

>     * Any old releases or CVS repositories of the front end, before its 
> inclusion in GCC, should be made available on the GCC FTP site 
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/old-releases/.
> 
> This is something I suggest we do not.  We have our own CVS repository 
> at SF, and we never had any official release, so no point IMHO.

The repository copies are so that the early history stays available (if
e.g. the repository - once dead and all development is in GCC mainline -
is removed by Sourceforge, or Sourceforge disappears).

> Check!!! -- mostly.
> The gcc_release part is done with the gcc_config patch.  The snapshot-* 
> is TODO.  But do we really want to mention g95 in there?  tree-ssa is 
> unreleased, so there will be no snapshots that contain g95 for many 
> months to come.  I suggest we skip the snapshot part of this point and 
> just keep the gcc_release like we have now.

That's something you can do on the files on the branch, so the changes
become relevant when it merges to mainline.

> I don't think we need our own version file.  Just the day-to-day version 
> bumps that we have on the tree-ssa branch since a couple of weeks ago 
> are good enough.

Front ends having their own version files or version numbers is certainly
deprecated.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk