This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at embecosm dot com>, jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com, David Edelsohn <edelsohn at gnu dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 15:59:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: Getting the ARC port reviewed and accepted
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5249A23F dot 8000901 at embecosm dot com> <CAFiYyc0Uo_UOo6tBSVtXJK4giQLiL6BhWWJA3=grds8deA3qMA at mail dot gmail dot com> <524A9173 dot 30301 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3ZJe_1XOOY5MeRD4UjOnc=KS9B1eTrgjPATT4OHNC-=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <524ACD05 dot 2020701 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc1q+hEeL5L2bwU_8fMW4SDSYBKdyG-xikRK_cgHF=mAkw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131001101941 dot n710f8j688owg4oo-nzlynne at webmail dot spamcop dot net> <524AE8FF dot 2010101 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvny=r1=CSaPt+Vtj_rP2wdiKP8F9TOuKMEnJ6g0iA=NTuxQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <524BD9EE dot 1080300 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvnyn_YLzSZP=egK23xnkXZTRfWQP3fB9PvNZUXviyTJ0cUw at mail dot gmail dot com> <524C2468 dot 201 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 01:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Haley<aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2013 12:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is unfortunate that global reviewers are so busy that they cannot
>>>> review the few, infrequent new port submissions. But I find it very
>>>> distasteful for someone to hyperventilate because other, busy people
>>>> don't do something that appears obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you do, but I find it far more distasteful to have a willing
>>> volunteer blocked for so long under such circumstances. This is not
>>> the way that we should be doing things.
>>
>>
>> Productive, helpful suggestions on how to improve the situation are
>> welcome.
>
>
> Clearly, insisting that only one of the few global maintainers can
> review the port is a problem. Global maintainers don't scale. There
> is no reason why the maintainer of another port can't review this
> port. It doesn't necessarily need an global maintainer.
>
> While a technical review of the port would undoubtedly be helpful, it
> does not make any sense to block the ARC port until it receives one:
> this is an unbounded wait.
>
> If there aren't any middle-end changes, the consequence of an ARC port
> that's not good is at worst an ARC port in GCC that is not good. Even
> if there are middle-end changes, these can be reviewed separately.
>
> The downside of continuing to block this submission for another year
> is obvious, and is, I submit, worse than the downside of accepting a
> port that still needs some work.
The main reason for technical review of a port is to avoid that it uses
deprecated mechanisms and thus blocks removal of them. Like
accepting a port that uses target macros when a corresponding
target hook exists, or accepting a port that uses reload instead of LRA,
or any other partial transition thing we had this matrix for somewhere
somewhen.
Richard.
> Andrew.