Re: [GCC steering committee] I'd like to be maintainer for Linux/x86 platform

[Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>]

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Apparently, there is no GCC maintainer for Linux/x86 platform. ?I have
> >> been working on GCC, as well as binutils and C libraries, for Linux/x86
> >> over 20 years. ?I ported GCC, binutils and the C library to Linux/x86. I
> >> like to be appointed as maintainer for Linux/x86 platform.
> >
> > H.J., you're a good developer, but I'm concerned that you commit patches
> > too quickly without fully considering all the issues. ?You are quick to
> > update your changes as well, but this leads to churn which has its own
> > problems. ?I would be comfortable saying that you should have the
> > ability to approve other people's patches for Linux/x86 (other people
> > who don't work closely with you, at any rate), but I'm not entirely
> > comfortable saying that you should be able to commit your own patches
> > without review.
> >
> 
> My direct motivation is to use DT_INIT_ARRAY on Linux/x86.  I
> have worked on all areas of DT_INIT_ARRAY, including specification
> as well as implementations in assembler, linker and glibc. My GCC patch
> hasn't been reviewed for many months.  It appears to me that no GCC
> maintainers seem interested or have capability to review platform
> specific support for Linux/x86.  If I am wrong, please let me know
> what I can do to make Linux/x86 to use DT_INIT_ARRAY.

This patch in question is somewhat special: as presented here it probably falls
under umbrella of x86 maintainer (except for configure bits).  There is however
nothing really x86 specific in the problem it solves. It is for targets that:

a) use GNU binutils
b) currently uses the old version of ctor/dtor support.

as far as I can tell, the last incarnation of patch in 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html
updates those targets and thus is not x86/Linux specfic patch.

I do like the idea of patch and see why it helps Mozilla/Chrome etc.  I also
looked into the original x86 specific version of the patch and I think I
suggested getting it generic.

It would help to answer the concerns discussed in 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
about relative ordering of "old" and "new" units with user defined constructor
functions and status of support in the GOLD linker.

Iant, it also do seem to me that you are about best fitting maintiner to review the
change :)

Honza
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> -- 
> H.J.