This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
- From: "Tannenbaum, Barry M" <barry dot m dot tannenbaum at intel dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Zamyatin, Igor" <igor dot zamyatin at intel dot com>, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Bae, Hansang" <hansang dot bae at intel dot com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:26:11 +0000
- Subject: RE: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87r3z33g2q dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net> <54205555 dot 5040506 at redhat dot com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969B792F6 at IRSMSX101 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <871tqug0ft dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net> <20140929110019 dot GC17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpaNrtjv2N=dKALK7Cod8BOhQxJ4xbxdtxQDbuk14iOyA at mail dot gmail dot com> <54F8BF10 dot 2070701 at redhat dot com> <877fuvdkji dot fsf at schwinge dot name>
I apologize. They got caught up in other issues. They've been merged into our mainstream and I believe they were just posted to the cilkplus.org website and submitted to GCC.
From: Thomas Schwinge [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:42 PM
To: Jeff Law
Cc: Zamyatin, Igor; Iyer, Balaji V; email@example.com; Tannenbaum, Barry M; H.J. Lu; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:02:30 +0000, "Zamyatin, Igor" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>>> Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>>> The original plan was for Balaji to take on this role; however,
> >>>>> his assignment within Intel has changed and thus he's not going
> >>>>> to have time to work on
> >>>>> Cilk+ anymore.
> >>>>> Igor Zamyatin has been doing a fair amount of Cilk+
> >>>>> maintenance/bugfixing and it might make sense for him to own it in the long term if he's interested.
> >>>> That's right.
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>> Can I add 2 records (cilk plus and libcilkrts) to Various Maintainers section?
> >>> I understand Jeff's email as a pre-approval of such a patch.
> >> I think only SC can appoint maintainers, and while Jeff is in the
> >> SC, my reading of that mail wasn't that it was the SC that has
> >> acked that, but rather a question if Igor is willing to take that
> >> role, which then would need to be acked by SC.
> > Where are we on this? Do we have a maintainer for Cilk Plus and its
> > run-time library?
> Not at this time. There was a bit of blockage on various things with
> the steering committee (who approves maintainers). I've got a
> half-dozen or so proposals queued (including Cilk maintainership).
What's the process then, that I get my Cilk Plus (libcilkrts) portability patches committed to GCC? I was advisd this must be routed through Intel (Barry M Tannenbaum CCed), which I have done months ago: I submitted the patches to Intel, and -- as I understood it -- Barry and I seemed to agree about them (at least I don't remember any requests for changes to be made on my side), but I have not seen a merge from Intel to update GCC's libcilkrts. Should I now commit to GCC the pending patches, <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C8738bae1mp.fsf%40kepler.schwinge.homeip.net%3E>