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: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery 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>, barry dot m dot tannenbaum at intel dot com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:13:11 -0700
- 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>
On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
For the runtime, the canonical bits are the upstream Cilk Plus project.
So any changes for the runtime go there first. The comments WRT Cilk+
maintainers were more for the bits in GCC itself (ie, front-end
extensions and related stuff up to gomp lowering/expansion.
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law <email@example.com> wrote:
On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" <email@example.com> 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
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.
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,
There's the possibility of an update of the Cilk Plus runtime for gcc-5.
Igor is going to summarize the situation for the release managers to
review and ultimately make a decision.