Re: [PATCH 0/13] D: Submission of D Front End

[Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>]

[Disclaimer: I can't approve any of this :-)]

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> writes:
>   001 - The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
>   002 - The front-end (GDC) implementation.
>   003 - The front-end (GDC) changelogs (here be dragons).
>   004 - The front-end (GDC) config, makefile, and manpages.
>   005 - GCC configuration file changes and documentation.
>   006 - Add D language support to GCC proper.
>   007 - Add D language support to GCC targets.
>   008 - D2 Testsuite tests.
>   009 - D2 Testsuite Dejagnu files.
>   010 - The D runtime library and license.
>   011 - GCC builtins and runtime support (part of D runtime)
>   012 - The Phobos runtime library and license.
>   013 - Phobos config, makefiles, and testsuite.

Just checking, but is it right that of these, the only parts that
touch generic code are:

>   005 - GCC configuration file changes and documentation.
>   006 - Add D language support to GCC proper.

Both seem fairly small (bar the autogenerated bits) and almost
unobjectionable.

>   007 - Add D language support to GCC targets.

In a sense you get to define what's correct here.

>   009 - D2 Testsuite Dejagnu files.

Already approved by Mike.

If that's all, then that's pretty impressive. :-)

I'm not sure who this is a question to really, but how much value is
there in reviewing the other patches?  Maybe people who know the
frontend interface well could comment on that part, but would anyone
here be able to do a meaningful review of the core frontend?  And AIUI
some of the patches are straight imports from an external upstream.

I was just wondering whether, once 5, 6 and 7 have been reviewed,
accepting the rest would be a policy decision, or whether there
was a plan for someone to review the whole series.

(Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it.)

Thanks,
Richard