Re: Would you like to be the PDP11 maintainer for the binutils ?

[Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>]

Nick,

>   Would you be interested in becoming the PDP11 maintainer for the binutils ?
>   It would mean that you can self-approve patches that are PDP11 specific.

I could do that.  I am retired so that means I don't need approval
from anyone, but it also means I don't have any company resources to
draw upon.

>   Plus it would mean that we would now have someone who cares about the PDP11
>   architecture and is interested in making sure that it works and continues
>   to work in the future.

So, for example, if someone introduces a new test that fails for the
PDP11 when you do your survey, you'd bring it to my attention?

>   If so then you will need write access to the repository (you may have this
>   already - I loose track of these kind of things), and then to make it
>   official, please add your name and email to the binutils/MAINTAINERS file.
>   The location in the file should be obvious.

I don't have write access, but I will submit a request with your email
as the approver.

In gcc/MAINTAINERS I see a long list of specific ports and individuals
who are maintainers for those ports, but in binutils/MAINTAINERS I did
not see specific ports or individuals listed.

At the instigation of Paul Koning, PDP11 maintainter for gcc, I have
implemented a first crack at pdp11-elf32 so that we might get C++ to
work on the PDP11 (I'm stuck on trying to build up the libraries at
this point).  I also mentioned to you the changes I would like to make
to nm to show addresses as 4 digits for 16-bit targets and to adjust
the spacing according to the selected radix.  What is the convention
to present such changes for review?  Should a PR be filed for each, or
just propose the change with a patch on binutils@sourceware.org?

                                                        -- Steve