This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?


Just to remind: it had been announced in
but more than a year later, this has still not been resolved.  No merge
of libcilkrts has been done from the upstream Intel sources into GCC
trunk (to bring in my GNU Hurd portability patches, for example).  I
understand that a GNU Hurd port is not of great importance, but here it
seems the whole process of the Intel upstream/shared source repository is

Also, still nobody is listed in the GCC MAINTAINERS file as being
responsible for Cilk Plus in GCC, which for more than a year, a proposal
for has been pending/waiting for GCC Steering Committee approval,


On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:13:11 -0700, Jeff Law <> wrote:
> On 03/05/15 17:41, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:39:44 -0700, Jeff Law <> wrote:
> >> On 02/23/15 14:41, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <> 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" <> 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,
> > <>
> > and following?
> 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.
> 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.
> Jeff

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]