Re: Submitting a patch for an architecture without a maintainer

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>]

On 03/30/2010 05:14 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Samuel Tardieu<sam@rfc1149.net>  wrote:
>    
> > Hi.
> >
> > GCC 4.5.0 will ship with support for lm32. This is an IP which can be
> > configured in several ways (with or without barrel shifter, and with or
> > without a hardware multiplier).
> >
> > To be usable in all cases, it has to support multilib. The support is
> > present but broken: the "MULTILIB_OPTIONS" variable is located in the
> > wrong file!
> >
> > I submitted a small patch from a colleague of mine
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00307.html) and sent three
> > PING already. But since there is no listed maintainer for lm32, it seems
> > that it doesn't draw any attention from anyone who can approve it, so I
> > cannot check it in.
> >
> > If we do not apply it, the multilib option for this new target will be
> > broken in 4.5.0. I know we are late in the development stage, but lm32
> > is a new target and reading the patch makes it clear that it cannot
> > break any other platform.
> >
> > I know you guys are all very busy but I am not able to reach anyone
> > interested in lm32 on gcc-patches. Could someone with global commit
> > rights have a look at this patch and approve/reject/delay it?
> >
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00307.html
> >      
> The patch is ok.
>
> I wonder why we even accepted a new port without a maintainer though.
> David?
>
>    
I thought Jon Beniston was maintainer of this.  He may not
have listed himself.

FWIW I filed a PR for an ICE on this target last week:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43527

--joel
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>    
> >   Sam
> >
> > PS/ Note that I don't use this architecture myself and I am not
> >     interested in becoming its maintainer -- I just happen to know
> >     someone who uses it and noticed that GCC was broken.
> > --
> > Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/
> >
> >
> >