This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: reviewers for wide int.
- From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:48:20 -0400
- Subject: Re: reviewers for wide int.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5356C2CF dot 20609 at naturalbridge dot com> <52e8015e-88aa-455c-aa48-a94659b8f30b at email dot android dot com>
On 04/22/2014 03:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
if you want to define it that narrowly you can. it really depends on
how much help you want and how much you trust us not to go beyond what
is reasonable. All three of us have been at this long enough to know
when to ask for help.
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
for wide-int. While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be
to make Richard Sandiford, Mike Stump and myself reviewers at least for
this release cycle.
While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved
Works for me. I suppose this mainly covers wide-int.[CH], right?