This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re; Maintaining, was: Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
On 3/1/07, Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> wrote:
I don't see why:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg02031.html
was a bad thing. i think gcc would have been better if it had just
been committed.
(or the target removed)
It is not, just nobody cares about that target any more, we have lots
of those targets hanging around. Zack created the patch to be able to
remove the old fashon code. Really I would say if a target
maintainers does not respond in a year for a patch which is to update
the target to the new infrastructure and no other patches are
committed in that year, the target should be removed because no one is
willing to maintain it. This is slightly different from any other
part of GCC really.
In fact the only patch that was committed for h8300 (besides just
normal maintaince work with the rest of the compiler) last year was to
the target for compiling on hosts where HWI was 64bits and that was
committed as obvious.
Only so much time in the day. I occasionally do comment on them.
Right and maintainers have so much time in a day to comment on patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00052.html
The ping^2 and ping^3 were within a week of each other.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00051.html
Likewise (well 8 days).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00048.html
Likewise.
A week is too short of time to ping a patch.