[RFC] A policy for supported ports and targets

[E. Weddington]

On 21 Jun 2004 at 11:39, Bob Wilson wrote:

> One thing that would help me a lot would be an easier way of finding out about
> changes that I need to make to keep the Xtensa port well-maintained.  I spend a
> significant fraction of my time trying to keep up with this mailing list.  Even
> so, I've had a hard time finding out what the current expectations are for GCC
> ports.  Going back to the DFA scheduler example, if I had known that you were
> planning to remove it for the next release, I would have made sure to to do that
> work sooner.  If you mentioned it on the mailing list, I guess I must have
> missed it.  Since contributing the Xtensa port, I've found a number of things
> that I've needed to change to keep up with the latest standards for GCC ports.
> In almost every case, I stumbled across these things while looking at other
> ports, browsing ChangeLogs, etc.  The backends.html matrix has been helpful, I
> guess.  I'm not sure what to suggest to solve this problem.  Informative subject
> lines in messages certainly helps (e.g., "old scheduler being removed for next
> release" would get my attention).

A couple of ideas to help for this situation:

1. Create a TODO list webpage for the various targets, what needs updating, 
etc., a la:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/>

2. Create enhancement PRs, one per item / target. 
But *please* don't throw multiple targets / issues into one PR such as:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1078>
Because then it just takes that much longer to close out a PR (witness the 
example), and I'm sure it makes it more difficult for port maintainers to hunt 
down these types of PRs.

I like #2 because then whoever stumbles across something that needs updating 
can issue the PR and the port maintainer can search the database for bugs / 
enhancements that pertain to the port. Plus there's a priority setting 
associated with PRs.

Eric Weddington