On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:45, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/09/2011 05:59 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> >> > Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping? Ping?
> >> >
> >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00246.html
> >> >
> >> > CC'ing the rest of build system maintainers.
> >>
> >> None of the build system maintainers can approve gcc.c changes.  And those can
> >> be approved only by either a global reviewer, or by Joseph. That's why I
> >> haven't replied anything up to now.
> >
> > I'm thinking of it as a build-system patch with a driver bit - where build
> > system maintainers need to decide the general principle of the
> > desirability of the feature and what all of the implementation outside
> > gcc.c should look like, before it makes sense to review the details of the
> > gcc.c bit.
> 
> Uhm, so we deadlocked, I thought the other way.  I cannot really
> express any opinion about the desirability of the feature, but the
> configure syntax is certainly okay with me, and I gather from the
> thread that you are fine with that as well.

Given the build system changes, the gcc.c changes are OK.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com