Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1215 bytes --]

Hi -

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:47:03PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks.
> > [...]
> 
> Because cgen feeds binutils, gdb, and sid.  Which one of those has the
> port maintainers responsible for cgen?  

Assuming you're referring to cgen model files as opposed to cgen scheme
sources, such port maintainers can work this out amongst themselves.
I see no need for formal process to handle this (hypothetical?) problem.


> What happens if a binutils
> maintainer changes cgen, and unknowingly breaks sid or gdb?

Then as soon as the breakage is identified, the person causing the
breakage will have to negotiate to assure some sort of correction.
No big deal.


> [...]
> 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?

In line with dje's hints, I have no objection, as long as people
stand behind their patch if unforseen negative effects result.


- FChE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]