Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>> 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