Re: status bounded pointer support in GCC

[Greg McGary <greg at mcgary dot org>]

ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Even if doesn't make it into gcc proper ...

As I understood it from Jeff Law, BPs were accepted for inclusion in
GCC by the steering committee more than a year ago.  At that time, I
considered Jeff something of a sponsor among the full maintainers of
GCC, and hoped to rely on him for timely turn-around on patches.
Unfortunately, about the time I was ready to start submitting patches
in earnest, Jeff had pulled way back on his time commitment to GCC.
Since then, I started a new job and have had much less time for BPs.
There is interest in deploying BPs among my employers, so I anticipate
having time for BPs again in the coming months.

At this time, BPs are in limbo, without a "sponsor" among the full
maintainers.  I hope that interest will pick up once the 3.0 release
is out of the way, but I fear that BPs might languish for years in
this condition unless a full maintainer steps forward and gives BPs
priority.

I'd appreciate hearing from the steering committee to either
confirm or deny the representation I made in the first paragraph.

I'd appreciate hearing from any GCC maintainer who'd like to work with
me to review my patches once 3.0 is out the door.

Greg