New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
Andrew Cagney
ac131313@redhat.com
Wed Dec 18 03:38:00 GMT 2002
>> Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks.
>> People should be able to police their own ports.
>> gcc port maintainers don't have to get approval for changes to their
>> ports. I don't understand why this would be any different.
>
>
> Because cgen feeds binutils, gdb, and sid. Which one of those has the
> port maintainers responsible for cgen? What happens if a binutils
> maintainer changes cgen, and unknowingly breaks sid or gdb?
>
>
>> But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better place to
>> provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints about warnings :-).
>
>
> Better than sid? Better than gdb? OTOH we've talked about moving the
> port-specific files out of cgen and into their own toplevel directory,
> which would remove this issue anyway.
>
> But, let me make the formal request anyway. gdb and sid cc'd.
>
> Cgen folks (and others)... would it be acceptable to change the cgen
> approval rules to allow people who could otherwise approve
> port-specific patches in binutils, gdb, or sid, to be allowed to
> approve port-specific changes in cgen as well?
This would only all make sense if the .opc et.al. files were all (C)
FSF. Which is back to my things-to-do-today list of fill out the
src/cpu directory a little.
Andrew
More information about the Binutils
mailing list