This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:15:38 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <hjl@lucon.org> <200107101703.NAA30910@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> "H J Lu" writes:
>
> HJ> It took 10 months to check in a simple patch to fix a testcase. That
> HJ> is only after my repeated requests. I have to thank Zack for getting
> HJ> out his way to make it happen. I have sent quite a few Linux/mips
> HJ> patches. I am still waiting. I don't think it is that hard to review
> HJ> all the patches sent in and try to fix all the regressions reported.
> HJ> It is just a matter of priority.
>
> GCC currently does not have a maintainer for the Mips port, so no
> one with resposibility for the port is reviewing bugs or fixing latent
> problems exposed by other patches (e.g., Bernd's patch).
That brings out several questions:
1. Shouldn't we have a policy that if there is no objection for a
patch for a few days, it is approved automatically under one condition
that it should be reverted immediately by anyone if it causes a
regression and the author can't fix it with 24/48 hours.
2. About my Linux/mips patches, they are for Linux only. I am fully
resposnsible for them. Can I check them in?
3. As for the mips backend, I am interested in it. But I don't know
enough about it to do any serious work without LOTS of help from
others. I can give it a shot if I can get LOTS of help, like the
C++ EH bug Richard helped to fix before 3.0.
H.J.